Senate Approves Online Shopping Sales Tax Bill
from the fairness? dept
We have a variety of concerns with the so-called "Marketplace Fairness Act," which will require companies selling things online to track, collect and distribute taxes based on where buyers are coming from. For small and medium-sized businesses, this is likely going to be a big burden online (and for buyers in many places, this will likely increase what you have to pay on checkout). Given the fact that the bill is mostly supported by brick and mortar stores and shopping centers, it's not difficult to see how it's an attack on online shopping (for what it's worth, Amazon was initially against the bill, but eventually flipped when it realized that it could use the bill to hold back smaller competitors).Unfortunately, the Senate passed the bill by a decent margin, 69-27. The bill will move to the House where it may be more difficult to pass. So it may die on the vine, even as the administration has said it will support it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brick and mortar, ecommerce, marketplace fairness act, online shopping, retailers, sales tax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well...
Sad, this is his first term as a Senator and he's done NOTHING but vote horribly since being in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
it is ONE DOLLAR, one vote
not
one person, one vote
guess what ?
you and me and the 99% don't got the ducats, so our -you know- vote-votes don't really count for much...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness?
Do you expect because 'internet' is involved that, that means they are not bound by the same rules and laws as everyone else ?
If that business in Delaware is trading in California it is perfectly fair.
Or do you think it's more fair for a Delaware business to change taxes on Delaware residents but let people from other places not pay any taxes ? is that fair ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
The problem is, this law isn't based in empiricism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
If I'm physically a resident of the state of California, and am visiting Delaware - I should pay local taxes on purchases for the state of Delaware (like normal) and the state of California??
If on-line businesses have to figure out where locality taxes apply, then brick and mortar businesses should also... after all its "ONLY FAIR"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fairness?
It's a tick complicated in the wording but the way Florida looks at it, for example for use tax, which is really what you're looking at here:
* If you buy a taxable item in Florida and didn't pay sales tax, you owe use tax.
* If you buy an item tax-exempt intending to resell it and then use the item in your business or for personal use, you owe use tax.
* If you buy a taxable item outside Florida and bring or have it delivered into this state and you didn't pay sales tax on the item, you owe use tax.
What is never clear here is whether "pay sales tax" in the last bullet means "pay any sales tax" or "pay Florida sales tax" - how I have seen this described is that if you paid sales tax somewhere else, you're good. If not, then Florida deserves use tax on the item. Or if you paid sales tax equal to or above Florida tax then you're OK. But if you paid less then you owe the difference.
Your Delaware example is interesting...because at least here, if you say bought a car in Delaware (no sales tax there) then got yourself transferred to FL and brought the car down, when you try to register it, Florida will ask for the bill of sale to check not just for the ownership but for the tax paid. Oh no paid no tax, sorry Charlie, you owe me 6%. But if the car's purchase is over 6 mos ago then no are good. So, how long do you think you'd wait to register that car? :)
Back a few years ago there was talk of Florida trying to tax home and business networks as "alternative communications systems"...yea.
Locality taxes, or what FL calls a "surtax" is even more interesting. For a small business to figure that out is going to be crazy, but it'll open a whole load of new software ventures to deal with it. :) So for Miami-Dade, the sales tax is 7% instead of the regular Florida 6%.
The big difference is that all the local retailers, the big shops...they deal with all of this locally anyway. The store's going to figure this stuff out and report to corporate, etc. There's a lot more resources that can be thrown at it.
But I think really the issue of overall impact on b&m retail is based a lot less on tax being paid and a lot more about item price before tax. Most people don't compare prices with tax included, they just look at the price itself. I'd rather buy my new BT headset local if A. I could actually find the damn thing locally and B. I couldn't save $60 on it by going to Amazon. If price and availability were equal I'd probably buy local, and I think a lot of other folks feel the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness?
Then that would be making an Internet company liable to a single taxing authority, not 2500 of them.
There is nothing fair about forcing a mom and pop operation to endure a burden that even the likes of Walmart doesn't have to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
Oh, wait. THEY DON'T check my ID.
Fairness would include ID checks at all stores in Sales Tax-free States so they can make sure to send all that tax money back on out-of-state purchases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
What do you mean 'let people from other places not pay any taxes?' If there's a sales tax in Delaware and I buy something in Delaware then I pay sales tax even if I'm not from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given that
Given that the trigger level appears to be about 1 million in sales in a given state, it's unlikely that small business will face much of a burden. The bigger concern will be small businesses charging an extra tax that they are not required to remit unless they hit that target level in a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations should be used as tax collectors.
For instance. Google has a pot of effectively unearned money and has paid less taxes on it than any reader pays on wages.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue- lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/14/us-investigates-googl e-tax-strategies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-ber muda-soar-to-10-billion.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255850/Google-6billion-Berm uda-tax-shelter-Web-giants-haven-revealed-Cameron-urges-global-crackdown.html
http://www.reuters. com/article/2013/05/01/us-tax-uk-google-specialreport-idUSBRE94005P20130501
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations should be used as tax collectors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations should be used as tax collectors.
Uhh...you do know what the word fictional means, don't you? Methinks you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations should be used as tax collectors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait that's been done already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One good thing...
If I can get it at the same price but get it local, i.e. faster then that's a route I'll go.
The overall price of the item and speed of acquisition as well as buying the item online because I simply cannot locate it locally are the bigger factors.
At least if this tripe passes I don't have to worry with "use tax" anymore - which nearly no one pays anyway.
Having said that, I do find it distasteful that a company will have to collect tax (and register in that state of course, and remit the forms whether they have any sales there or not for that quarter/month/year) on behalf of a state they don't have physical presence in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One good thing...
if you buy a product from another state, when you get that product, then that product is the PHYSICAL PRESENCE you are talking about.
The product you purchased in now in your state, and the money you used to purchase is not OUT of your state.
The physical presence is the product you purchased, your physical presence in the other state is the money you paid for that product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
The product of the company is the company? The money paid for the product is the customer? Really? By that logic someone would have to go through the immigration process just to buy something from overseas, or a company could have a global, taxable presence just by shipping enough packages.
There's stretching logic and reason, and then there's taking it out back and shooting it, and you most certainly just did the second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One good thing...
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One good thing...
You are correct and the AC is wrong. The case on point is Quill v. North Dakota: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=504+U.S.+298&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=34341044726 75031870&scilh=0
The issue there is whether a state can, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, tax an out-of-state retailer. The Court created a four-part test, one prong of which was "substantial nexus" which is where the "physical presence" comes in. Courts have been interpreting this requirement to be fulfilled when a company like Amazon has affiliates in the state. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates located in all the states, so they saw the writing on the wall and started supporting the Marketplace Fairness Act. If they're going to get taxed, they want other big e-retailers to be taxed too. Now that Congress is passing this law, the "physical presence" requirement goes away. The reason is simple. The test from Quill only said an out-of-state retailer couldn't be taxed by a state without the "physical presence" because that would be stepping on Congress' toes as only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Now that Congress is getting in on things and exercising its power under the Commerce Clause to permit states to tax even out-of-state retailers who have no physical presence, the Dormant Commerce Clause reason that did not permit states to do this themselves goes away. States are no longer stepping on Congress' toes since Congress is permitting it.
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
No, the PA business would pay sales tax to PA. You may have the duty to pay a use tax in FL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One good thing...
The seller simply collects the sales tax, and remits that to the state. It is never the seller's money, they are not "paying" the sales tax.
That's different from a state taxing a seller on things like inventory or other corporate income tax...that is entirely different than sales tax.
Florida's statements, which I have posted somewhere in this thread, amount to, if you buy something out of state but paid no tax on it then you owe use tax. This has been also written as if you pay a lower amount of tax out of state then you may owe the difference to FL. Generally however, if you buy something in another state, on vacation or whatever, and bring it here to FL you won't owe use tax on it since you paid sales tax on it somewhere else. It is vague however, because it does not stipulate that you paid FL sales tax. So there could in theory be a double hit. I don't believe it is being interpreted that way however. The biggest hits will come if you buy a large ticket item in a state where there is no sales tax. Then you get the big ol stick in the rear when you bring it here...such as with a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One good thing...
Well, according to the "length of the cord" theory of law interpretation, OF COURSE you do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One good thing...
Entirely incorrect. You're mixing meanings.
The physical presence is the vendor itself, not the product. If I sell a product out of state today I am not required to collect sales tax on behalf of that state because I am not located there. I am only in Florida.
However, when I buy online from a company somewhere else in FL, they collect sales tax because they're located in FL. If I buy from a company in MD, with no physical presence in FL, they do not collect sales tax for FL in the transaction. However, that does not mean that I am not still obligated to pay sales tax to Florida. I am, only now they call it "use tax" instead.
Remember the sales tax obligation is always on the buyer. The seller simply acts as a collector and then remits that to the state. The money collected in sales tax never belongs to the seller.
And unless the bill is worded differently, and I suspect the way this is, each state will come up with their own rules...once you do one sale in a state you'll probably have to register and report regardless of the dollars collected. And once you register, you are generally on the hook to file the reports with each state regardless of whether you actually did any business in that state for the specific period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fairness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dig into the donors of Organizing For America to see where it's money is coming from.
This would be just one more nail in the coffin of American Entrepreneurialism and put the engine of the economy, the small business man out to pasture.
The reason this has not been done as yet is that it's such a bad idea economically. But then this is the SOP for this administration, look at health care, regulations, tax policy, and government grants to failed companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess you are using some bargain basement service provider, so you can skim more money out of this site.
I guess you don't mind if your site is one of the slowest on the net, it's not like anyone takes any notice of you anyway I guess.
It's just a shame for a "tech" site that you fail to display or present any form of decent 'tech', even on your own web page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow as Molasses?
I would say that it is likely there is a problem elsewhere in the path to you, including some possible problem with your ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Feel better about yourself now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why buyers’ jurisdiction and not sellers’?
What is so important about buyers’ locations as opposed to sellers’ that makes all the added complication worthwhile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why buyers’ jurisdiction and not sellers’?
They want to eliminate as much "wiggle room" as they can.
An perfect example are companies such as MS and Google maintaining a PO Box as a corporate HQ just to use (abuse) tax laws and not have to pay million/billions.
It's the law. Play the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why buyers’ jurisdiction and not sellers’?
Thanks.
Considering that point, I have to admit that this does make sense (granting the notion that sales taxes make sense at all, which is a whole other can of worms). It’s still depressing to see that government can only seem to deal with anything, ever, by making things more complicated and increasing the visible footprint of the machinery of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why buyers’ jurisdiction and not sellers’?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why buyers’ jurisdiction and not sellers’?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate America at work. The same attitudes are becoming increasingly common here in the UK too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than that it's just business as usual in the US where legacy businesses are much more important than innovating ones =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hands-down worst ever. Did you notice how they moved at absolutely light-speed to vote themselves pay raises, DURING the fiscal cliff negotiations? They can drag their feet on everything else, but when THEY benefit, its full-steam ahead and don't block the tracks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see it now
I think perhaps 1% of all online commerce revenue for 20 years seems fair compensation for my toil inventing that. Race you to the PTO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about crying over nothing. Too complicated to own a business? Then go work for someone. *sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a burden to assess taxation at a State, County, City level. There have been many studies done and they all point out the high cost to business that this would cause.
So - yeah, serious? .... go do some research before spewing crapola.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always hear the argument against this is that it's too onerous to force companies to figure out their tax obligations and adjust their labeling accordingly, but if we've decided it isn't to onerous for internet companies they why do B&M stores get to skip out on the responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind that the GDP measures government spending as a good thing. An idiotic Keynesian economic dream.
With the House and Senate out of public control there is little doubt that this federal stupidity will grow. Taxes have always been a great method of control over goods and services.
Since government spending and self restraint is non existent the basic response should be NO. What is the problem is that citizens can't vote specifically about legislation that directly harms their lives. On may wonder at the logic of requiring the US House and Senate to be forced to ask for voter approval of the various bills and acts but considering the worthless special interest infested legislation produced lately there should be no problem. (with the logic) Its so obvious that the elected politicians have NOT been doing their jobs of protecting the average citizen.
In many US states there are voter requirements on tax bills and other legislation. As one might have guessed the property, sales and income taxes are much lower in such smart states with wise citizens. Compare Co or Wy with NY or IL. The ratio of taxation is sometimes 5:1 (and greater in some cases) and yet the lower taxation states do better in services and infrastructure upkeep. It is (again) a voter awareness problem.
For random example; In IL a roadwork construction project asphalt truck would load up at the asphalt plant with asphalt being billed to that same state/county/township roadwork project and divert it to some politicians or other paying residents driveway re blacktopping. (Cook county 'Trucks for hire' scandal) When big money is involved corruption is rampant. Always hard to ferret out.
One of the finest/best ways to put a cork on runaway government is to limit its ability to tax the populace. Since taxation is abused in so many ways by special interest legislation its an easy logical thing to do.
In the realm of limiting runaway government spending programs who cares about fair. Fair has noting to do with it. Dump and complain about any elected politician or idiotic bureaucracy infested party (both of them?) that allows such obvious slipshod taxation.
In all cases; “Spending will increase to match available funding.” It is mandatory that this funding be strictly limited otherwise it will be common that government will waste billions on panic/fear based nonsense like Doctor Who imaginary cybermen attacks. (Oops? Did that already happen?)
Reactionary,
Mentioned before is the two part action; 1) A constituent calling their legislator and POLITELY explaining how dissatisfied they are with a vote on extra taxes is a great thing to do. It lets them know they wont be able to get their vote for reelection and spends some of their limited congressional staff budget allowance.
2) Send a few bucks to the few House and Senate legislators and a BRIEF note telling them you love them when they say NO to more taxation. Even if these politicians are from another state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use the ICC properly for a change.
Make it a federal sales tax and tell the states to go pound sand. Ban the current state practices entirely including "use taxes".
This kind of interstate nonsense is why we have a federal government to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use the ICC properly for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use the ICC properly for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use the ICC properly for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Senators voted for it, i already emailed them and copied their house pals... NO VOTES FOR YOU, NO MONEY FOR YOU, and YES I WILL CONTINUE TO BE ACTIVE AND SHOW YOU FOR THE MONEY GRUBBING BOUGHT AND PAID FOR TURN COATS YOU ARE....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxation without representation
What's the problem with this? Well, the business in Illinois is able to vote the politicians in Illinois out of office if they are unhappy with the way the state is handling taxes. I'm upset with what my county is doing with the income from sales tax, I have the recourse to vote for other people.
However, the politicians in New York have absolutely no accountability for the business in Illinois. And the business has no recourse against said politicians.
So...please tell me how this is not taxation without representation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxation without representation?
What's the problem with this? Well, the business in Illinois is able to vote the politicians in Illinois out of office if they are unhappy with the way the state is handling taxes or what have you.
However, the politicians in New York have absolutely no accountability for the business in Illinois. And the business has no recourse against said politicians.
So...how is this not taxation without representation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online Shoping
MuslimZon Best USA online Islamic Books and Gifts shop,MuslimZon Products are Zaky DVDs,
one4kids, learning Roots, eid and Ramadan products and gifts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online Shoping
MuslimZon Best USA online Islamic Books and Gifts shop. MuslimZon Products are Zaky DVDs, one4kids, learning Roots,
eid & Ramadan products and gifts, Children's Books and Toys, Puzzles, Arabic & Quran Learning, Novelties and Story Books
and CD's & DVD's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
article
Muslimzon online books,gifts,games and toys providing Muslim story books,best Quran learning books,English books ,magazines latest games,gifts and muslim toys for the kids in USA.Muslimzon invited audience on muslimzon stor and provide latest and best products of muslimzon. Beautiful fresh flower,gifts,books,toys,perfume halal ithar and other different products .you can take this products by online shopping.
http://www.muslimzon.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Book Shops
Islamicbooksandmore online islamic books shop are provides are all Islamic Books Islamicbooksandmore products are learning Arabic Books,Hadith & sunnah,English islamic books
Children products are Games & Toys,CDs & DVDs,Learning Quran, Electronic and Digital Items,Prayer Times WatchQuran Software. and more...
Contuct Us:
check out the Link For More Details:
http://islamicbooksandmore.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy cheapest Online Shopping Deals
The blog Senate Approves Online Shopping Sales Tax Bill
is great........It gives nice information about the online shopping related to diffrent types of sales tax bills..... Also you can save your shopping time.......I thankful to the admin of the blog Senate Approves Online Shopping Sales Tax Bill
........
Regards Chhaya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wpbytes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was only a matter of time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
taxservice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Convert Security Services & Consultant
You can confidently count on us for your first choice of specialist security personnel, including:
Convert Home New
Mobile Patrol
Manned Security
Retail Security
Remote Monitoring
Sub-Contracting
Construction Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]