The Quill Bill starring the Senate and the House, not Ulma Thurman.
20 years ago North Dakota sued the Quill Corporation over sales taxes. Quill is
incorporated in Delaware and is a catalog company that sells office supplies. I
know I used to order from them for churches I served as I could buy paper etc.
at much cheaper prices that our local business supply store. I feel guilt over
that now.
The court ruled in favor of Quill based upon the Commerce Clause,
which gives the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce
and prohibits states from applying duties that interfere with interstate
commerce.
That was perhaps understandable at the time but the world has
changed. It is easy for us now to spend our money on things we want via the
Internet rather than running downtown to buy from local stores; and we get
better prices and we don’t have to pay sales tax. Good for us, but not so good
for states that rely on sales taxes. And not good for local stores; many of
which have gone out of business unable to compete against the Internet stores
and mega stores such as Wal-Mart.
Now collecting these taxes for states if the Quill Bill goes away
will be a real hassle for those Internet and catalog companies. But is it any
more of a hassle than what local stores have to deal with in collecting state
taxes?
I think the handwriting is on the wall for such companies, and
sales taxes will somehow find there was to be collected from these Internet and
catalog companies. Amazon seems to just have accepted that that will be a
reality for the future.
Following are summaries of three bills before congress dealing with
these issues. You might want to look them over and consider what you think is
fair. Right now I’m leaning in favor of the states ability to collect these
sales taxes. But then we liberals like taxes don’t we? It seems like a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" to me.
H.R.2701
Latest Title: Main Street Fairness Act
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 7/29/2011) Cosponsors (10)
Related Bills: S.1452
Latest Major Action: 8/25/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Latest Title: Main Street Fairness Act
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 7/29/2011) Cosponsors (10)
Related Bills: S.1452
Latest Major Action: 8/25/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Main Street Fairness Act - Grants the consent of Congress to the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (Agreement), the multistate agreement
on sales and use tax collection and administration adopted on November 12,
2002.
Authorizes each state that is a party to the Agreement (member
state), after 10 states (comprising at least 20% of the total population of all
states imposing a sales tax) have petitioned for and have become member states,
to require all remote sellers not qualifying for the small seller exception to
collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales owed to each such member
state under the terms of the Agreement. Terminates such authority if the
requirements of this Act cease to be satisfied or an amendment adopted to the
Agreement after the enactment of this Act is inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act.
Allows any person affected by the Agreement to petition the
Governing Board established by the Agreement for a determination of any issue
arising under the Agreement. Provides for judicial review of Governing Board
determinations by the United States Court of Federal Claims and grants such
Court exclusive jurisdiction over actions for judicial review.
Sets forth minimum requirements for simplifying the
administration of multistate sales and use taxation under the Agreement.
Provides for judicial review of any civil action challenging the
constitutionality of this Act by a panel of three judges of a U.S. District
Court.
Expresses the sense of Congress that each member state under the
Agreement should work with other member states to prevent double taxation where
a foreign country has imposed a transaction tax on a digital good or service.
-
- -
-
S.1452
Latest Title: Main Street Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 7/29/2011) Cosponsors (5)
Related Bills: H.R.2701
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Latest Title: Main Street Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 7/29/2011) Cosponsors (5)
Related Bills: H.R.2701
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
-
-
SUMMARY AS OF:
7/29/2011--Introduced.
7/29/2011--Introduced.
-
Main Street Fairness Act
- Grants the consent of Congress to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
(Agreement), the multistate agreement on sales and use tax collection and
administration adopted on November 12, 2002.
-
Authorizes each state
that is a party to the Agreement (member state), after 10 states (comprising at
least 20% of the total population of all states imposing a sales tax) have
petitioned for and have become member states, to require all remote sellers not
qualifying for the small seller exception to collect and remit sales and use
taxes on remote sales owed to each such member state under the terms of the
Agreement. Terminates such authority if the requirements of this Act cease to
be satisfied or an amendment adopted to the Agreement after the enactment of
this Act is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
-
Allows any person
affected by the Agreement to petition the Governing Board established by the
Agreement for a determination of any issue arising under the Agreement.
Provides for judicial review of Governing Board determinations by the United
States Court of Federal Claims and grants such Court exclusive jurisdiction
over actions for judicial review.
-
Sets forth minimum
requirements for simplifying the administration of multistate sales and use
taxation under the Agreement.
-
Provides for judicial
review of any civil action challenging the constitutionality of this Act by a
panel of three judges of a U.S. District Court.
-
Expresses the sense of
Congress that each member state under the Agreement should work with other
member states to prevent double taxation where a foreign country has imposed a
transaction tax on a digital good or service.
H.R.3179
Latest Title: Marketplace Equity Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] (introduced 10/13/2011) Cosponsors (56)
Latest Major Action: 7/24/2012 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
Latest Title: Marketplace Equity Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] (introduced 10/13/2011) Cosponsors (56)
Latest Major Action: 7/24/2012 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
SUMMARY AS OF:
10/13/2011--Introduced.
10/13/2011--Introduced.
Marketplace Equity Act of 2011 - Authorizes
states to require all sellers making remote sales to collect and remit sales
and use taxes with respect to such sales into the state, without regard to the
location of the seller, if such states implement a simplified system for
administration of sales and use tax collection for remote sellers. Requires
such a system to include, at a minimum: (1) an exception for remote sellers
with gross annual receipts in the preceding calendar year from remote sales not
exceeding $1 million in the United States or not exceeding $100,000 in the
state, (2) a single sales and use tax return for use by remote sellers and a
single revenue authority within the state with which remote sellers are
required to file a tax return, and (3) a uniform tax base throughout the state.
Defines "remote sale" as a sale of
goods or services attributed to a state with respect to which a seller does not
have adequate physical presence to establish a nexus so as to allow such state
to require such seller to collect and remit taxes.
S.1832
Latest Title: Marketplace Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 11/9/2011) Cosponsors (21)
Latest Major Action: 11/9/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Latest Title: Marketplace Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 11/9/2011) Cosponsors (21)
Latest Major Action: 11/9/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
SUMMARY AS OF:
11/9/2011--Introduced.
11/9/2011--Introduced.
Marketplace Fairness Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that
states should be able to enforce their existing sales and use tax laws and to
treat similar sales transactions equally, without regard to the manner in which
the sale is transacted, and to collect, or decide not to collect, taxes that
are owed under state law.
Authorizes each member state under the Streamlined Sales and Use
Tax Agreement (the multistate agreement for the administration and collection
of sales and use taxes adopted on November 12, 2002) to require all sellers not
qualifying for a small-seller exception (sellers with annual gross receipts in
total U.S. remote sales of less than $500,000) to collect and remit sales and
use taxes with respect to remote sales under provisions of the Agreement.
Defines "remote sale" as a sale of goods or services attributed to a
state with respect to which a seller does not have adequate physical presence
to establish a nexus with the state.
Allows a state that is not a member state under the Agreement to
require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote
sales sourced to such state if the state adopts and implements certain minimum
simplification requirements, including: (1) providing a single state agency to
administer all sales and use taxes, (2) establishing a uniform sales and use
tax base, (3) relieving remote sellers from liability to the state or a
locality for collection of the incorrect amount of sales or use tax based on
information provided by the state, and (4) providing remote sellers 30 days'
notice of a tax rate change by any locality in the state.
The desire to further overtax is just more unnecessary greed. Overlooked in this is that shipping costs typically overcome any tax advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe Interstate Commerce Clause was there, and is there for a good reason. We are one nation, not a set of 50 competing feifdoms with guards at the borders.
I look forward to other more favorable options; how about lowering the punishing (and in tax terms, regressive) sales tax burden on the brick and mortar shops to bring them closer to what is gone on with the online retailers?
Perhaps the real problem is not that the state governments should screw online retailers exactly the way they screw small brick-and-mortar shops, but that they must screw these businesses so hard anyway (forcing them to go out of business, fire people, raise prices which can hurt the poor, or locate to another place that actually welcomes them).