Study shows 86% of consumers prefer point-of-purchase sales tax collection online

May 15, 2012

International Council of Shopping CentersAccording to a press release issued yesterday, a study by the International Council of Shopping Centers shows that the vast majority of consumers—86%!—say that “it would be far easier to pay sales tax on online purchases at the point-of-purchase.” That’s compared to the current system, which requires consumers to track their online spending, calculate the sales tax due, and pay that sales tax with their income tax returns.

(For those still uncertain about whether sales tax is already due on online purchases: It is. You can learn more here.)

Among the revealing and fascinating results of the study are these tidbits:

86% of consumers feel it would be easier to pay sales tax on online purchases at the point-of-purchase rather than at the end-of-the-year on their tax forms, as is the current system.

61% of respondents in states that collect sales tax understand that they are required to pay state sales or use tax on online purchases if not collected by the vendor when they file their state income tax.

56% of consumers support the congressional effort to require online retailers to collect sales tax at the point-of-purchase.

We couldn’t agree more with the majority of respondents, especially having recently struggled with that “sales tax on online purchases” line on our tax returns. The system needs to change. Sales tax should be collected at the point of purchase online, just as it is on Main Street.

And we were excited to see that a full 56% of respondents support federal legislation on the issue. That’s a number that Congress should find difficult to ignore—especially when combined with all the feedback from state politicians who are letting their federal counterparts now just how much they need a national law (Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, Maine Governor Paul LePage, and many more).

The ICSC also supports federal legislation, as do we. The voices are getting louder: It’s time for Congress to act.


US online retail continues 17% to 20% year-over-year growth!

May 11, 2012

Today turned out to be an unusually interesting day for three reasons.

First, the U.S. Census Bureau released its latest E-Stats Report for FYE 2010 today, which revealed that online retail reached $169 billion for all of 2010. The Census Bureau data point does not include online auctions or marketplaces. If you add in eBay’s 2010 U.S. Gross Merchandise Volume (GMV) of $20.4 billion, total online retail could be estimated at approximately $190 billion for FYE 2010. The E-Stats Report also includes preliminary estimates for online retail in 2011 of approximately $194.3 billion. Once again, if you add eBay’s 2011 GMV of $22.8 billion, total online retail could be estimated at approximately $217 billion for FYE 2011.

Second, today comScore released Q1 online retail statistics, which say that online spending in the U.S. reached $44.3 billion (excluding auctions), an increase of 17% over last year. Interestingly, comScore will be hosting a free webinar to review their data in detail—including recent trends toward “showrooming” (in which a buyer goes to a bricks-and-mortar store to compare different items, then leaves the store and purchases online to avoid sales tax).

Finally, today Internet Retailer released their annual Top 500 Guide. As usual, Amazon tops the list with $48 billion in sales.

An interesting data point in the annual ranking includes the dramatic range in revenue from the top of the list to the bottom. At number 500 is Summit Sports with just under $15 million (0.00024% of eBay’s sales volume).

We have always thought it notable that eBay is not included in this list. We understand that as a marketplace operator, they are not the direct retailer; rather, they aggregate millions of sellers under one roof. However, if eBay were included on the list, based upon only their marketplace and GSI business units (excluding PayPal), they would beat even Amazon with $62 billion in GMV in 2011 (worldwide).

Here’s an interesting observation about the census and Internet Retailer data. The total online commerce represented in the Top 500 list—which, you’ll remember, ends with a retailer that had just under $15 million in sales in 2011—was $150 billion in 2010. However, the census data reports $190 billion for 2010. That year, the retailer at the bottom of the Top 500 list was MagnetStreet with $11 million. Since the census figure includes all retailers while the Top 500 figure includes only retailers with more than $11 million in annual sales in 2011, we now know how much businesses with less than $11 million in annual sales generated together in 2010.

In other words, because it didn’t count businesses with less than $11 million in annual sales in 2010, the Top 500 list only accounted for $150 billion in total ecommerce sales in 2010 instead of $190 billion.

That’s $40 billion in ecommerce being transacted by merchants with less than $11 million in annual sales! It’s also important to remember that the IR Top 500 Guide is not restricted to US sales but includes all sales worldwide. So there could be considerably more than $40 billion in ecommerce that’s still under the radar.

There are a lot of conclusions that could be drawn from this, but we’ll save those discussions for another post at a later date.


New study about online sales tax asks the wrong questions

May 9, 2012

According to this article in The Atlantic, a new study by “Stanford researchers” tries to take a look at the effects that sales tax would have on online shopping.

The problem is, they they don’t take into account that sales tax is already due on online purchases—a point derided in the study as “tax surprises.”

The study, “out this week on the National Bureau of Economic Research, looks at how sensitive online retail is to tax changes by tracking the behavior of eBay users.” It doesn’t include real estate and auto transactions.

The study concludes that “a one percentage point increase in a state’’s sales tax increases online purchases by state residents by just under two percent, but decreases their online purchases from home-state retailers by 3-4 percent.”

But the same sales tax you pay locally is already due online. Nobody is suggesting raising sales taxes, online or otherwise—certainly not differentially. So what does this study really tell us about online sales tax collection?

Not much. It doesn’t take a team of economists to tell us that an increase in sales tax rates causes a decrease in sales, at least temporarily. Thank goodness raising sales tax rates isn’t on the table.

What we still don’t know is how online sales tax collection—having retailers collect the sales tax that is already due on online purchases, so individuals don’t have to calculate and remit it themselves—would affect online shopping. It’s too bad the researchers didn’t look at that question. But the Atlantic article ventures a guess:
Many shoppers aren’t just moving to the web because of price, but for convenience. All other things equal, it’s their default choice. And as that attitude becomes more prevalent, the impact of a sales tax could diminish.So would a sales tax put a crimp in online retail? Quite possibly. But it’s hard to believe it would be anything but temporary. (emphasis ours)

We were also very curious about how the team got the eBay data they used for the study. As our regular readers know, eBay is on record as opposing online sales tax collection—is it possible that they sponsored or otherwise supported the study in the hopes that it would add fuel to their argument?

After several days of consideration, this important question burned brighter and brighter, so we gave in and bought our own copy of the 42-page study (for $5.00, and no, they didn’t charge sales tax—see picture—and yes, e-books are subject to sales tax in the State of Washington. Mental note: Don’t forget to report and remit $0.48 to the Washington Department of Revenue because the online seller refuses to do this for me like every local store must.)

The paper is very upfront about pointing out potential conflicts of interest. One of the four authors, Neel Sundaresan, is Senior Director for eBay Research Labs and is employed by eBay. Another of the authors is Professor Jonathan D. Levin, Chair of the Department of Economics at Stanford University, who was a paid consultant to eBay Research Labs in 2010 and 2011.

Don’t misunderstand the point of our post—we would love to see a study that truly looks at the actual effects of online sales tax collection on online shopping. Unfortunately, this isn’t it.

We also wish the team had taken a moment to report on two very basic questions:

  1. Out of all the transactions data they had access to (all transactions from 2008 to 2010), how many transactions included sales tax?
  2. Out of all the sellers represented in the transaction data, how many sellers conducted more than 200 transactions or had over $20,000 in sales in each of the three years? Similarly, how many sellers exceeded $50,000 in sales in each of the three years? Finally, how many sellers exceeded $150,000 or $500,000 in sales in each of the three years?

Given the intensity of debate around this issue at the local, state, and federal level—particularly around these two points—it is unfortunate that the researchers missed (or avoided) the opportunity to provide such insight.


We ♥ Senator Cardin – The most entertaining 108 seconds in online sales tax collection history

April 26, 2012

Yesterday we were in Washington DC to attend the Senate Finance Committee hearing we mentioned a few days ago. We would encourage everyone to watch the video of entire hearing, particularly Professor Walter Hellerstein’s outstanding testimony (time-code 47:50 to 52:47). But we are posting today to tell you about the very exciting portion of the hearing when Senator Cardin (D-MD) asked questions of the witnesses (time-code 84:41 to 91:32). Our regular readers will truly appreciate the last 108 seconds.

We have prepared this unofficial transcript of Senator Cardin’s questions from the video of the hearing.

Senator Cardin: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and let me thank the panelists. I want to talk about one of the major sources of revenues for our state, and that’s the sales and use tax.

Dr. Rubin, I want to focus on the fact of how much of those revenues are not being collected today. It’s been estimated as a result of out-of-state shipments, principally through the internet, that there’s eleven billion dollars ($11,000,000,000) a year not being collected. Now, I’ve got the Maryland number, and the Maryland number is thee hundred million ($300,000,000). Which is an interesting number because the governor is talking today about bringing the legislature back to a special session in May because of a three-hundred-million-dollar gap and is looking at increasing a lot of taxes in our state because we need three hundred million dollars to balance our budget. If we had this sales and use tax, we would have a balanced budget, and there would be no need to bring the legislature back into session.

Which brings me to the Marketplace Fairness Act – trying to establish a level playing field. You can go to a retail store in Maryland. Use your phone to take a photograph of the identification [of a product], then go on the internet and get that product shipped into Maryland and avoid the sales tax. Price might be identical, but you’re avoiding the sales tax. To me this is a matter of tax integrity.

The person who does that is supposed to pay a use tax and I have heard that retailers or internet sellers feel that it is such a burden to have to collect a sales tax. It is a huge burden to ask Marylanders to pay a use tax. So, aren’t we picking winners and losers if [we] don’t take some action to provide for a level playing field?

Dr. Rubin: I am a big fan of there being some action to help coordinate these issues. I think that as more sales get done on the internet or electronically or through catalogs, state and local governments are going to be at a disadvantage. So, congressional action to coordinate this seems like a no-brainer, from my perspective.

Senator Cardin: Mr. Zinman, I see that you’re anxious to respond, I’m going to give you a chance.

Mr. Zinman: I’m just agreeing.

Senator Cardin: Ok, well, good. Let me just pose the question. There’s two issues that are usually raised by those who have asked for delay of federal action.

One is that it’s a little complicated, because of all the different sales and use taxes. I point out that there’s free software available that would assist in the collection of this.

The other is for a small business exception – which is included, by the way, in the Marketplace Fairness Act. I’m not aware of any small business exceptions on the brick and mortar requirements to collect sales tax if you have a facility located in our state. Is there any administrative reason why we shouldn’t be moving forward on this, that cannot be solved?

Mr. Zinman: Absolutely not. If you look at what’s happing with BestBuy – that is even though they’re multi-state, they’re brick and mortar – they’re hurting a lot because of the internet sales because . . . I’ll give you a perfect example. An individual can go to New York and buy a set of golf clubs . . . and he has a place in Florida. He buys an expensive set of golf clubs, and he says ship it to Florida, no sales tax. It’ll cost him $30 dollars to ship those golf clubs down to Florida . . .

Mr. Henchman: Florida has a very high sales tax.

Mr. Zinman: . . .but he’s not paying . . . he’s supposed to pay. I’m not saying what he’s supposed to do. I’m saying what actually happens. What actually happens is, he is not reporting that sales tax in Florida.

Senator Cardin: I haven’t check with Florida’s use taxes, but my guess is there’s not many being filed by individual consumers.

Mr. Zinman: In New York, we have a line on our New York State – and many states have a line on their tax return – asking the taxpayer to voluntarily compute and give back the sales tax they should’ve paid, in the form of a use tax. But you now take a state like Florida, that doesn’t even have a state income tax form to report this – they have use tax forms, they are there, they’re available. But many people who have multi-state residences – I’m just using New York and Florida as an example because that’s a corridor that a lot of people travel. A lot of individuals are ignoring the taxes they have to pay.

Senator Cardin: It’s my understanding that we have a form in our state where you can include the use tax, we have that in Maryland. The three-hundred-million-dollar number I gave you is a net number. I don’t know the exact amount of use taxes that we collect from individual consumers, but it’s minuscule.

Mr. Zinman: I’m sure its minuscule.

(time-code 89:44)

Mr. Henchman: Senator, very briefly . . . I just want to be sure the goal of simplification is not minimized here. Because while that retailer has to collect, and doesn’t get a de minimus threshold, they are only collecting one sales tax. Internet retailers would have to track and collect 9,600 across the country. And yes there is software on the rates, but that software doesn’t help you to distinguish between all the sales tax holidays, and all the different rates on different products.

Senator Cardin: Are you telling me that computers cannot figure this out?

Mr. Henchman: It’s not computers, it’s tracking the states laws . . .

Senator Cardin: I have my iPad. And I’m amazed at what I can put into my iPad and get an answer immediately. Are you trying to tell me we don’t have a computer program that can figure out this issue?

Mr. Henchman: It’s not a question of computer programming, but a question of tracking changes in legislative laws. There’s a lot of . . .

Senator Cardin: And my iPad gets me the up-to-date information on traffic instantaneously. You’re trying to tell me we don’t have that technology available today?

Mr. Henchman: I work at the Tax Foundation. We do our best to keep track of all state and local laws and changes, and it’s difficult for us, and we’re not running a business.

Senator Cardin: Well, I think you better get a better program.

Gallery: [laughter]

Senator Cardin: I find this hard to understand that when you’ve got governmental actions, which are very public actions . . . every time taxes are changed . . . that that can’t be done? I’m not minimizing the issues of simplicity.

Mr. Henchman: The laws . . .

Senator Cardin: And we’ve been talking about this ever since I’ve been in Congress, which is twenty-some years. This is being used as an excuse for inaction! It’s not a problem that can’t be overcome.

Mr. Henchman: To me it’s not an excuse for inaction, it’s an excuse for the right kind of action. Some of the bills you’ve mentioned have very different . . .

Senator Cardin: Well, after twenty-some years, don’t you think it’s time for some action?

Mr. Henchman: I agree, but . . .

Senator Cardin: Thank you. I appreciate your opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Baucus: I like it!

Gallery: [laughter]

Chairman Baucus: That’s good. Good for you guys.

Gallery: [laughter]

Chairman Baucus: That’s how you get information out.

Gallery: [laughter]

Based upon the testimony and statements provided to the committee, we hope Chairman Baucus and the rest of the committee will act quickly to advance the Marketplace Fairness Act.


FedTax Statement Submitted for the Record of the Senate Finance Committee (in support of Marketplace Fairness Act)

April 26, 2012

[Download PDF of FedTax Statement]

Statement Submitted for the Record to

The United States Senate Committee on Finance

Full Committee Hearing

Tax Reform and What It Means for

State and Local Tax and Fiscal Policy

April 25, 2012

 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-6200

Attn:  Editorial and Document Section

Rm. SD-219

Statement submitted by

R. David L. Campbell[i]

Chief Executive Officer

and

Joan Wagnon[ii]

Executive Vice President

The Federal Tax Authority, LLC

162 East Avenue

Norwalk, CT. 06851-5715

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist in 1788 that “individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the support of their own wants.”

Today the discussion about state sovereignty over matters of taxation continues unabated. State revenue directors have seen firsthand how the actions of the federal government have affected state and local revenues. Members of Congress are increasingly bombarded by requests for action because state laws are restrictive to business or seen as unfair. There are any numbers of examples where congressional action has been beneficial or harmful to states.

But the issue that has been most devastating to state and local government has resulted from Congressional inaction, rather than action: the failure of Congress to overturn Quill v North Dakota.[iii] 

The Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), S. 1832, sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators (Enzi, Durbin, Alexander, et. al.) is a good solution to the revenue problems of states, but more importantly, it gives states a better mechanism than they have now to collect the taxes they already levy.[iv]

The MFA also corrects a growing imbalance between groups of retailers. Under the current court ruling, tax is collected on some sales and not on other sales of the exact same items. Why should tax be collected on a book or camera purchased from a local business and not on an identical item purchased from a mail order or internet business?

Remote sales are growing at double digit rates.[v] However, states’ inability to collect sales tax on these sales results in the erosion of the states’ tax bases. Certainly this unfairness is not the hallmark of good tax policy! Congress is creating winners and losers among the retail community by its inaction.

Opponents cite two specific reasons for allowing this unfair situation to continue: a) that remote collection would be overly burdensome and complex, and b) that any systems necessary for remote collection would be prohibitively costly. This testimony will provide technical information for Congress to consider when evaluating those arguments.

I.       The Complexity Argument

Technology has advanced considerably since the 1967 and 1992 Supreme Court rulings that created the current sales tax situation. Even the more recent of these, Quill, occurred before the first graphical browser was invented, before most homes had internet connections, and long before e-commerce forever changed the retail landscape. Today, forty-five years after Bellas Hess and twenty years after Quill, online marketplaces and auction sites easily manage millions of items for sale at any given moment.

Today, keeping track of a few thousand local tax rates and filing requirements is not an insurmountable technical, administrative, or financial burden. TaxCloud, the sales tax management system created by FedTax, proves this point by calculating and collecting sales tax on any purchase for any tax jurisdiction in the United States in less than one second. The service is free to all retailers.

The technologies necessary to create such a system are not new; they are well-established. In fact, they are currently being used throughout e-commerce. They are Application Programming Interfaces and Web Services. An Application Programming Interface (API) allows dissimilar and unrelated systems to communicate with each other using pre-established syntax and structure. Web Services allow APIs to be used for machine-to-machine interactions over the internet. Both are now commonly used in e-commerce—for example, in real-time-shipping, which allows a retailer to provide its customers with accurate, real-time quotes for shipping costs based on at least five variables, including weight, size, delivery speed, origin, and destination. Often customers can even compare shipping costs among multiple shippers.

With APIs, Web Services, and other technological advances of the past twenty years, it is now possible for remote retailers to easily keep track of every state’s tax laws. 

To minimize or completely eliminate the undue burdens cited in Bellas Hess and Quill, more than half of the states with sales tax have worked together for twelve years to create the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). These states provide free rates and boundaries databases for all of their respective taxing jurisdictions, and regularly issue updates when rules, rates, or boundaries change. In addition these states also certify and pay for software and service providers to manage sales tax compliance on behalf of retailers.[vi] The Marketplace Fairness Act requires that any states seeking remote collection authority shall comply with SSUTA or provide comparable rates and boundaries information as well as certified software and services that retailers can rely upon to achieve compliance with minimal burden.[vii]

Ironically, those who argue most strenuously that remote collection would be too complex are a few large online businesses that already rely on these same technologies every day, in every transaction. The plain fact is that online retailers operate the largest marketplaces in the world by relying on technology to simplify and automate a host of historically burdensome chores, including payment automation, location-specific marketing, personalized recommendations, and even Duties and Value Added Tax management for foreign governments.

II.        The Costs-of-Compliance or Undue Burden Argument

Opponents also argue that even if technology can solve the technical burden of keeping track of rates, jurisdictions, and filing complexities, such software would be prohibitively costly, particularly for small businesses. TaxCloud is provided to retailers at no cost—so the argument that such software would be prohibitively costly should be flatly disregarded. However, the costs-of-compliance argument also maintains that even if the software is free, businesses will still be burdened with the cost of integrating such software into their existing systems.

This line of argument ignores the reality that all but the very largest retailers rely upon pre-written software and/or online hosted platforms for e-commerce and order management. Retailers rely upon these systems to avoid the costs of developing, managing, and maintaining such systems on their own, costs that are magnified by the changing nature of e-commerce. It is no secret that e-commerce is constantly changing to respond to evolving cyber-crime threats, payments and security industry best-practices, and, yes, legislative requirements. When their retailer clients need to collect sales tax, platform vendors will provide ways for them to do so, embedded within the platforms that retailers already use.

E-commerce platform vendors are intensely competitive and focused; they take pride in not only complying with evolving requirements but often surpassing them, occasionally with stunning results. For example, much of the cloud computing infrastructure now transforming every corner of the technology sector can be traced to several of the largest e-commerce companies adapting to comply with the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Most platforms already provide basic sales tax management features for their clients. Upon enactment of MFA, these existing systems will quickly be adapted to ensure compliance.

To conclude, modern technology has made it easy for retailers to collect sales tax for any state in the U.S. TaxCloud enables retailers of any size to easily collect sales tax and comply with the provisions of The Marketplace Fairness Act—for free. More information is available at TaxCloud.net.

And in addition to TaxCloud, five other companies are certified by the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board and ready to assist when Congress authorizes collection—and no doubt hundreds more will emerge soon after legislation is passed, because the free-market system will provide the incentive for entrepreneurs and innovators to develop these products.

Please don’t wait to enact the Marketplace Fairness Act until all the parts of tax reform are in place. Passing this one bill can be the foundation for future reform as well as provide great benefit to both state and local governments. It also benefits brick and mortar retailers. Creating the same tax collection system for retailers whether they sell online or in a store is only fair.

/R. David L. Campbell/
R. David L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
/Joan Wagnon/
Joan Wagnon
Executive Vice President

[Download PDF of FedTax Senate Finance Committee Statement - 4/25/2012]


[i] David Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of The Federal Tax Authority (FedTax), founded the company in 2008. FedTax is a Washington State Limited Liability Company with operations in Washington, Connecticut, and Kansas.  Its management team includes highly experienced professionals who have been directly involved in building some of the most recognizable brands in e-commerce, including MasterCard, Google, WebMD, Microsoft, Expedia, and American Express.

[ii] Joan Wagnon served as Secretary of Revenue in Kansas from 2003 to 2011. She also chaired the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board in 2008-9 and the Multistate Tax Commission from 2006 to 2008. She served on the Board of Directors of the Federation of Tax Administrators for 8 years before joining FedTax to work toward the passage of federal legislation granting states’ collection authority over remote sales.

[iii] The notion that out-of-state retailers would find it overly burdensome to keep track of every state’s sales tax rules can be traced directly to the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Department of Revenue. In its majority opinion, the court ruled thatthe many variations in rates of tax, in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and record-keeping requirements could entangle National’s interstate business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions” (emphasis added).

In 1992, the matter of remote sales tax collection came before the Supreme Court again in Quill v. North Dakota. This time, the court reaffirmed the earlier Bellas Hess decision by a ruling of 8 to 1, primarily on the basis of stare decisis. The ruling went on to state, “[O]ur decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve.”

FedTax frequently cites the earlier Bellas Hess quote because it summarizes the ruling’s basis in complexity and burden, which has rippled forward to the present day and created a tidal wave of unintended consequences. This ruling has shielded all out-of-state retailers from the obligation to collect sales tax, based purely on the notion that it would place too much of a burden on businesses. Perhaps it would have, in 1967. That was the year the floppy disk was invented at IBM.

[iv] States typically depend on voluntary means of collecting from individuals, such as a voluntary line on the income tax form. Audit procedures, which are used for businesses, are ineffective for consumers.

[v] On Cyber Monday (the first Monday after Thanksgiving) in 2011, over $1.2 billion in sales were transacted online. On that day alone, approximately $58 million in sales tax went uncollected.

[vi] FedTax has been designated a Certified Service Provider (CSP) by the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board specifically for its TaxCloud service. There are six CSPs and 24 member and associate member states.

[vii] Although “software and services” is not defined in the Marketplace Fairness Act, likely it will include Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Web Services, rates and boundaries databases, and a process for certifying service providers to process returns accurately under state laws.

[Download PDF of FedTax Senate Finance Committee Statement - 4/25/2012]


Bellas Hess, Quill, and online sales tax collection

April 25, 2012

As you’ve likely noticed, there has been quite a bit of news lately about online sales tax collection. In the media coverage of this issue, we’ve frequently seen glancing references to the Supreme Court cases Quill or Bellas Hess—but rarely an actual explanation of how they affect consumers, retailers, and states, let alone what exactly those rulings say.

On this occasion, the eve before the Senate Finance Committee Hearing “Tax Reform: What It Means for State and Local Tax and Fiscal Policy” (where we expect the Marketplace Fairness Act to be discussed at length) we thought it might be helpful to give a brief review of these two landmark Supreme Court cases.

This post is not a scholarly analysis of the (dormant) Commerce Clause, or due process concerns, or states sovereignty and federalism—such analyses are amply handled by greater legal/constitutional minds than ours. Rather, this post is intended as a primer for business leaders, so they can understand why these rulings are important and why the logic underlying them is so out-of-date—warranting attention and action by Congress.

Bellas Hess refers to the 1967 Supreme Court case National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois. Illinois’s Department of Revenue attempted to force catalog retailer Bellas Hess, which was based in Kansas City, to collect Illinois sales tax. Bellas Hess refused, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that only businesses with nexus in a state have to collect sales tax for that state. Nexus is created by a physical presence, though opinions on what constitutes a physical presence vary. It can be a warehouse, office, retail location, employees, or even vehicles. Some states have argued that having business affiliates in a state creates nexus there.

In any case, the Supreme Court specified that businesses had to have nexus in a state to collect sales tax there because it would be too burdensome for a business located in one state to collect sales tax for another state (possibly every state). Specifically, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion:

The many variations in rates of tax, in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and record-keeping requirements could entangle National [Bellas Hess]‘s interstate business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions.

(emphasis ours)

Interestingly, in the dissenting opinion, Justice Abraham Fortas wrote that “the Court’s response that these administrative and record keeping requirements could ‘entangle’ appellant’s interstate business in a welter of complicated obligations vastly underestimates the skill of contemporary man and his machines.” We couldn’t agree more—and it’s even more true now, in 2012, than in 1967. We know that technology is able to handle multistate sales tax because we’ve built a service that does so: TaxCloud.

The Bellas Hess ruling went on to say that an act of Congress was necessary to give states the ability to require out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax. Without an act of Congress, the Supreme Court ruling was the ultimate authority on what states could and could not do.

In 1992, the issue of out-of-state sales tax collection arose again. North Dakota tried to require Quill Corporation, a mail-order office supply company incorporated in Delaware, to collect tax on its sales into the state. Quill refused on the grounds that it had no physical operations or employees in North Dakota.

The Supreme Court sided with Quill, citing the previous ruling in Bellas Hess and stating that customers alone (in other words, an economic presence) weren’t enough to create nexus.

However, in the Quill ruling, the Supreme Court specifically invited Congress to exercise its authority to overrule the Supreme Court by enacting legislation:

[O]ur decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v.Benjamin328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years Congress has considered legislation that would “overrule” the Bellas Hess rule. Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.

Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, “this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana453 U.S. 609, 637 (1981) (White, J., concurring). In this situation, it may be that “the better part of both wisdom and valor is to respect the judgment of the other branches of the Government.”Id., at 638.

(emphasis ours)

In other words, the Supreme Court left the issue up to Congress.

To sum up: The Supreme Court rulings in Bellas Hess (1967) and Quill (1992) determined that a business needs to have a physical presence in a state in order for the state to require the business to collect sales tax. What constitutes a physical presence is still a matter of debate, however.

The Supreme Court also made it clear that Congress has the power to pass legislation changing the outcome of the Supreme Court rulings. And because the Court based its decisions on the idea that collecting sales tax would be too burdensome for remote retailers, an idea that technology has rendered moot, it’s critically important that Congress do so.

We hope Congress will learn enough tomorrow to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act quickly to correct the devastating imbalance impacting retailers, consumers, and local governments across the country.


Arizona governor wants Congress to act on online sales tax collection

April 13, 2012
Governor Jan Brewer

Governor Jan Brewer wants Congress to act on online sales tax collection

An article in the Arizona Republic reveals that Arizona retailers are asking Governor Jan Brewer to level the playing field between bricks-and-mortar and online stores. A bill currently stalled in the Arizona legislature would require Amazon, which has four warehouses in the state, to collect sales tax on purchases made by Arizona residents.

The article says that Governor Brewer has refused to get involved, saying that this is an issue for the federal government to deal with.

While we fully support Arizona retailers and believe that online retailers should be collecting sales tax, we also agree with Governor Brewer (in fact, we sent her a letter to that effect).

Because of the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court cases Bellas Hess and Quill, only Congress can level the playing field for online and bricks-and-mortar retailers. We hope Governor Brewer will communicate her support for congressional action to Arizona Senators Kyl and McCain, ideally in advance of the rapidly approaching Senate Finance Committee hearing on April 25 (which is another blog post we’ve been meaning to get to).

By the way, we found a factual error in the Arizona Republic article: It erroneously says that Amazon sales are tax-free in Arizona. But like every other state with sales tax, Arizona applies sales tax to online purchases. If sales tax is not collected at the time of purchase (and online, it usually isn’t) the purchaser is supposed to report and pay the tax directly to the state.


Idaho governor supports online sales tax collection

April 12, 2012
Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter

According to this AP article, Idaho’s Governor Otter restated his support for online sales tax collection last Friday in an address given from his office.

Governor Otter joins many other lawmakers in voicing his support for online sales tax collection. And we’re pleased to note that despite the press’s characterization of the GOP as against online sales tax collection, Governor Otter is the latest in a long line of Republican politicians who publicly support it, including U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO),  Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Boozman (R-AR)Tennessee Governor Bill HaslamMaine Governor Paul LePage, and many local lawmakers, such as Texas State Representative John Otto, Indiana State Senator Luke Kenley, and Florida State Senator Evelyn Lynn.

We also found the last two lines of the AP article interesting:

House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, who accompanied Otter as he addressed reporters on the Capitol’s second floor, reiterated his opposition Friday.
 
Moyle says Congress should take action first.

We’re thrilled to see that even those who oppose local action on online sales tax collection are not opposed to the basic principle—they just acknowledge that local action isn’t enough. Given the fact that this issue deals with interstate commerce, the (dormant) Commerce Clause applies, which means that only Congress is authorized to change the rules and limits established by the Supreme Court in Bellas Hess (1967) and Quill (1992). Those cases said that retailers without a physical presence in a state were not required to collect sales tax for that state (although they in no way suggested that tax would not be legitimately due).

Local and state laws cannot supersede that precedent. In order for their online sales tax collection laws to have any real effect, states need Congress to pass a law granting states the option to require online retailers to collect sales tax—this option simply isn’t available to them today (at least, not without significant legal challenges, as we have seen over the past few years). It’s for that reason, as well as many others, that we support the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Hopefully Governor Otter will channel his support and urge Idaho Senators Mike Crapo (R) and James Risch (D) to join the other fourteen bipartisan sponsors of the Marketplace Fairness Act and work to pass the bill this year.


Colorado’s online sales tax reporting requirements law finally killed

April 7, 2012

A federal judge has finally issued a permanent injunction on Colorado’s 2010 online sales tax reporting requirements law, which called for all online retailers to report purchases made by Colorado residents to the state’s Department of Revenue. A temporary injunction against the law was issued last year just before the reporting requirements would have gone into effect.

In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Blackburn looks at the precedent set by the 1992 Supreme Court case Quill v. North Dakota, which mandated that out-of-state retailers did not have to collect sales tax even as it recommended that Congress address the issue—which, of course, it has yet to do.

Blackburn writes:

Quill puts states like Colorado in a difficult position. The state cannot require out-of-state retailers, retailers with no physical presence in the state, to collect and remit sales tax on sales those retailers make to residents of Colorado. Residents who make purchases from those retailers are obligated to pay use tax on those purchases, but enforcing the use tax is significantly more difficult than enforcing the sales tax. Seeking to enhance enforcement of the use tax on those who make purchases from out-of-state retailers, a state understandably looks to the out-of-state retailers for key information that can enhance enforcement. However, if the state has a mandatory sales tax system, as does Colorado, enforcing a reporting requirement on out-of-state retailers will, by definition, discriminate against the out-of-state retailers by imposing unique burdens on those retailers. Such a system imposes a differential burden on out-of-state retailers because the different burden is imposed precisely because the retailer is an out-of-state retailer entitled to the protection of Quill. Quill creates the in-state versus out-of-state distinction, and the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits differential treatment based on that distinction. Only a change in the law by the Supreme Court or action by Congress can change this situation. Quill, 504 U.S. at 318 (“Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.”) (emphasis ours)

It’s worth repeating: “Only a change in the law by the Supreme Court or action by Congress can change this situation.”

Our readers may be surprised, given our support of states’ efforts for online sales tax collection in general, that we agree with Judge Blackburn—on his overall ruling, the fact that Quill makes the current situation difficult for states, and his assertion that only federal action, not state, can remedy the situation.

State after state has tried to increase the collection of sales tax on online purchases, but only a federal law, like the Marketplace Fairness Act, can overcome the limits set by Quill—or, more precisely, can exercise the interstate commerce authority reserved for Congress via the (dormant) Commerce Clause.

One other interesting point: Colorado doesn’t include a line on its income tax return form for reporting and remitting sales tax on online purchases. The reason given? That “the amount of tax collected did not justify the printing expense.” We have to think that, while that may have been true in 1974, it wouldn’t be true anymore, and it does seem like a reasonable measure to impose until Congress acts on online sales tax collection.

But the inclusion of this fact in the ruling leads us to another question. The ruling says that “there are at least three reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives” to reporting requirements that could also increase the collection of sales tax on online purchases: the line on income tax returns, increased auditing of businesses, and consumer education and notification programs aimed at increasing compliance.

What about the other states that have already implemented these, that include the line on income tax returns, have increased business audits, and created consumer education programs—and still have not seen satisfactory compliance with its sales tax laws? Would these states be permitted to implement reporting requirements?

Other ideas in the ruling make us think not, but better legal minds than ours may be tempted to try. We still oppose reporting requirements, primarily because they are an invasion of consumer privacy, but we wouldn’t be surprised if another state, fed up with lack of action by Congress, decides to try this approach.

The best course of action, as we have been arguing for a long time, is for Congress to pass federal legislation allowing states to require online retailers to collect sales tax, for many good reasons.


Georgia legislature passes online sales tax law

April 4, 2012

Late last week, Georgia’s state legislature passed a law requiring online retailers with affiliates in the state to collect sales tax. It will next go to the governor, who has said he will sign it. Georgia is a member of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which means they have already simplified their sales tax laws to make it easier for retailers to collect sales tax.

When other states have passed these kinds of affiliate nexus laws, online retailers have responded by simply ending their affiliate relationships in the state. These laws end up hurting small businesses that rely on affiliate marketing income and do not bring in any additional sales tax revenue.

Interestingly, the National Conference of State Legislatures opposed the legislation, but not because they don’t support online sales tax collection:

The National Conference of State Legislatures opposes such legislation at the state level, and is lobbying for a federal law.

“States want to go after this money that’s owed to them, which is understandable,” Behlke said. However, he said, unless federal legislation is passed that gives states greater authority to collect the tax, states will continue to miss out on billions in revenue.

The NCSL is correct, federal legislation is best—and as state after state passes this kind of law (Georgia is the fourteenth to introduce such legislation), they send a clear statement to Congress that a federal law is desperately wanted and needed.

This quote from the president of the Georgia Retail Association neatly summarizes a few of the reasons so many states and retail associations favor online sales tax collection:

“The reality is that brick-and-mortar stores have a responsibility of collecting sales tax from their customers at the point of sale,” said Rick McAllister, president of the Georgia Retail Association and a proponent of the tax. “With the evolution of the Internet, most of our members who have Internet sales collect tax on their sites, but there are some who don’t. It’s not a new tax. What we’re asking folks to do is collect the sales tax from their customers and remit it to the state of Georgia just like all the brick and mortar stores do.”

In other words, bricks-and-mortar stores are collecting sales tax while online stores are not, creating an inequity that favors online store over their Main Street counterparts. And he makes an important point: Sales tax on online purchases already exists. If the online retailer doesn’t collect it, the purchaser is supposed to remit the tax on their own.

This fact isn’t well-known, as this quote from a Georgia shopper reveals:

Even when the rule takes effect, Hayes said she doubts it will deter her from shopping on the Internet, since she’s mainly in it for convenience.

“If I wanted to save money, I’d probably just go to a bricks and mortar establishment,” she said. “I’m paying so it shows up at my doorstep. If there’s an extra surcharge, I probably won’t even notice that I should be upset about it.”

But the fact is, this isn’t an extra surcharge. Shoppers are already supposed to pay sales tax whether they buy online or in local stores. With this law, that sales tax will simply be collected by retailers, taking the burden of calculating and remitting off shoppers.

Because so few know of this law and even fewer abide by it, states are losing a vast amount of revenue at a time when few can afford it. According to a report drafted by the Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgia, the lack of online sales tax collection will cost the state $410 million in 2012 alone.

For all these reasons—because the current situation hurts Main Street retailers; because states are losing hundreds of millions in revenue; because a tax that is due is simply going unpaid—we expect to see more and more states join Georgia and the thirteen other states that are calling for online sales tax collection, until a federal law is finally passed.

Georgia’s Governor Deal should follow Maine’s Governor LePage’s recent example and reach out to Senators Johnny Isakson (R) and Saxby Chambliss (R) to urge them to support the Marketplace Fairness Act (S.1832).


eBay relaxing opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act?

March 29, 2012

It all started when Maine’s Governor Paul LePage sent a letter to Maine’s Senators Snow and Collins, urging them to support the Marketplace Fairness Act (S.1832).

Then, we learned (from an article by Jonathan Riskind, Washington Bureau Chief for MaineToday Media) that eBay had written a response letter to Governor LePage. Yesterday, eBay announced/confirmed this letter.

We are happy to note that eBay did not write in opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act but instead simply confirmed that small business retailers should be adequately protected from new burdens (which is already provided for in the bill).

We have taken a moment to review eBay’s letter carefully and noticed something odd. Mr. Riskind’s article cites the eBay letter:

eBay notes there are a variety of internet sales tax bills pending in Congress and says it supports a “robust” exemption set by the U.S. Small Business Administration, which will ”be able to most accurately measure which businesses need protection the most.”

We could not find this quote in eBay’s Letter.

We also wrote a letter to Governor LePage regarding his support of the Marketplace Fairness Act and eBay’s reported objections to it, which we sent yesterday (before eBay released their letter).


Amazon makes a deal with Indiana. Who’s next?

January 24, 2012

Indiana has been a member of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) since 2005, so we here at FedTax were surprised when we heard that affiliate nexus legislation (sometimes called “Amazon tax”) was being proposed there (H.B. 1119). Regular readers of this blog know that affiliate nexus laws expand the definition of nexus to include affiliate marketers— locally based websites that provide marketing for out-of-state merchants. Affiliate nexus laws are generally ineffective because, time, and time, and time,  and time again the impacted e-commerce retailers have demonstrated their willingness to sever ties with their in-state affiliates so they can avoid being singled-out as the only remote retailers being required to collect.

We were very pleased when we learned this was not going to happen in Indiana.  Governor Mitch Daniels announced that Amazon has agreed to begin collecting sales tax in Indiana in 2014—or even sooner if Congress enacts guiding legislation, like the Marketplace Fairness Act  (S.1832). In exchange, the Indiana legislature will not advance the proposed affiliate nexus legislation. As an additional benefit, the Indiana-based Simon Property Group (the largest shopping mall owner in the U.S.)  has agreed to suspend its lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Revenue over its failure to require Amazon to collect sales tax despite its three distribution warehouses in the state. Governor Daniels said that Indiana is the 4th state with such a tax collection agreement with Amazon, joining California, Tennessee, and South Carolina.

Now even more states are considering similar legislation. We do not intend to hatch a conspiracy theory, but some could draw the conclusion that these bills are being used as an indirect method of “requesting” that Amazon open distribution centers in their state. We hope Congress will act soon to end all this craziness.


LA Times: “Level the retail playing field”

December 13, 2011
LA Times

LA Times: Level the retail playing field

Yet another major news outlet has spoken out in favor of online sales tax collection. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times says that current sales tax law unfairly favors online retailers over bricks-and-mortar stores.

The LA Times joins many smaller outlets that have already published editorials advocating online sales tax collection. We strongly recommend this particular editorial because it not only gets all the details right—that sales tax is already due on online purchases, that pending legislation includes an exemption for small businesses, and more—but it also poses a thoughtful argument that considers not just the fairness of online sales tax collection but also the political realities surrounding it.

The editorial ends with this concise summary:

Sales taxes are an important part of the revenue mix for governments because, as consumption taxes, they don’t penalize labor, investment or productivity the way other forms of taxation do. And if states decide to impose a sales tax, they should be able to impose it fairly and effectively. The bipartisan online-sales-tax proposals are a way to accomplish those goals. In the process, they would help states close their budget gaps by enforcing existing laws rather than raising tax rates. Most important, they would eliminate the undeserved competitive advantage some online sellers enjoy because shoppers don’t know or don’t care that they’re obliged to pay taxes.


TheStreet.com speaks out against online “sales-tax evasion”

December 8, 2011
TheStreet

TheStreet says when online retailers don't collect sales tax, it's tax evasion

An article on TheStreet calls the lack of online sales tax collection “sales-tax evasion” and says that it’s likely to come to an end soon.

The article uses strong language to compare online retailers that don’t collect sales tax to the “gray-goods stores” of the past:

There used to be a time when sales-tax evasion was a grimy business. It required a sleazy merchant and a greedy customer, conspiring to make the transaction in cash, “tax included” (wink-wink). Once there was a string of electronics stores on Manhattan’s Lower East Side that survived by non-taxed transactions in “gray goods,” in which the state tax authorities (and sometimes customers) were systematically cheated.

Today, of course, nothing has changed.

The merchants are still sleazy, the customers are still greedy — only now, sales-tax evasion is both commonplace and organized. The name for this particular variety of organized crime is known as “Internet retailing.”

As you might expect from that opening, the article doesn’t pull its punches. It makes for a read that’s compelling as well as informative. Witness this paragraph on online retailers’ losing battle against sales tax collection:

If the Internet retailers get socked with a sales tax, they have pretty much themselves to blame. They’ve been outmaneuvered by the brick-and-mortar stores, who have successfully presented this as a David vs. Goliath battle. But in a sense there’s also the historical fact that no business model predicated on cheating the government ever works. Amazon, by supporting the legislation, is simply going along with the march of history.

According to the article, legislation allowing states to require online retailers to collect sales tax is almost certain to pass. And we were thrilled to see this comment on the argument that collecting sales tax online is too complicated or burdensome:

Amazon’s acquiescence, meanwhile, made mush of [Overstock.com CEO Patrick] Byrne’s dubious claim that modern software wasn’t up to the task of doing something as complex as computing the correct sales tax for each customer.

As our regular readers know, we created TaxCloud expressly to make collecting sales tax easy and inexpensive for online retailers. It’s hard to see how anyone could argue that it’s too difficult to collect sales tax when a free service like TaxCloud is available to not only calculate the tax due in real time, but also to file sales tax returns, process exemptions, and handle any audits.

We recommend reading the entire article for an interesting take on the online sales tax collection situation.

The article ends by taking a moral stance on online sales tax with this closing paragraph:

I know, paying taxes is annoying. But even the Internet retailers, their laissez-faire anti-tax arguments notwithstanding, rely upon government services like the Postal Service to get goods to their customers. And if they use private services like FedEx, those package-delivery trucks travel on roads maintained by local taxes. For years, the net has taken advantage of those goodies without collecting a dime, and profiting from the resulting “discount.” It’s high time that free ride came to an end.


Alabama takes next step toward joining Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

November 30, 2011

According to this Birmingham News article, Alabama is taking the next step toward becoming a member of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement:

A group created to streamline Alabama’s sales and use tax reporting system for retailers approved a preliminary report Monday, a step toward crafting legislation for lawmakers to consider next year.

The Alabama Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Commission made two recommendations for simplifying Alabama’s sales tax laws, including reducing the paperwork store owners must complete in order to remit sales tax.

Should next year’s expected legislation pass, it will make life easier for Alabama shopkeepers and help prevent budget cuts to state services:

Ely said the proposed legislation, if it’s approved by lawmakers in their 2012 session, represents a win for both retailers and governments because it would make life easier for retailers while raising revenue for governments without raising taxes.

“These poor folks are not only covered up in red tape, but they’re also covered up with auditors,” Ely said.

Sounds like a win-win to us!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 469 other followers