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.


Governor Brown signs Amazon compromise bill into law

September 23, 2011
Governor Jerry Brown

Governor Jerry Brown

Breaking news: California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law Assembly Bill 155, a bill that represents a compromise between Amazon.com and California lawmakers.

We’ve blogged about Amazon’s objection to California’s affiliate nexus law, which required online retailers with affiliates in the state to collect sales tax. Since the law was enacted in July, Amazon had been collecting signatures to put a referendum on the law on California’s next ballot. But earlier this month California lawmakers and Amazon reached a compromise that takes that referendum off the ballot and puts the affiliate nexus law on hold until September 2012.

The idea behind the postponement is that it gives time for Congress to pass the Main Street Fairness Act—and for California lawmakers and Amazon to work together to help get it passed.

We’re thrilled that Governor Brown has signed the compromise bill into law. With the affiliate nexus law on hold, we expect Amazon and other online retailers to resume its relationships with California affiliates, which means that 25,000 affiliates will no longer face the choice of losing their income or moving out of state.

And of course, as our regular readers know, we’ve always supported the Main Street Fairness Act as a much better option than state-by-state affiliate nexus laws. It doesn’t hurt affiliates, unlike the state laws, and it actually makes collecting sales tax easier for online retailers—it authorizes only states that have simplified their sales tax laws to require online retailers to collect sales tax.

And then, the main objection that online retailers have to the Main Street Fairness Act—that collecting sales tax for multiple states is too difficult—simply isn’t true, not any more. Technology has reached the point that collecting sales tax is no more difficult for online retailers than calculating shipping rates, something every online retailer does. (More information on myths and facts about the Main Street Fairness Act is available here.)

We applaud Governor Brown for signing AB 155 into law. It’s practical, bipartisan legislation that is supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the California legislature and ultimately serves the interests of both online retailers and California residents.


Florida business groups inspired by California-Amazon deal

September 19, 2011

According to a Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL) article, Florida business groups are hopeful that the deal between California legislators and Amazon—which repeals California’s online sales tax collection law in exchange for the reinstatement of Amazon’s 10,000 California affiliates and requires both groups to work together for the passage of the federal Main Street Fairness Act; if the federal bill doesn’t pass by the end of July 2012, the California law will be reinstated—will “help convince [Florida] lawmakers to take similar steps”:

Mark Wilson, president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Florida Alliance for Main Street Fairness, saw the California deal as a positive sign for Florida retailers.

“If Amazon can collect and remit sales taxes in California, it can do it [in] Florida,” Wilson said. “Recently, both Texas and California passed E-fairness legislation to level the playing field for small businesses. Now, Amazon’s agreement to collect sales tax in California — just like Main Street retailers — proves that they don’t need a special tax deal at the expense of Florida-based small businesses either.”

Wilson said Florida lawmakers now have “a unique opportunity to put small business job-creation ahead of Amazon’s tax subsidies.”

While Wilson has a point—I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s too difficult for Amazon to collect Florida sales tax (especially with services like TaxCloud available)—Amazon has good reasons to support federal online sales tax collection legislation (the Main Street Fairness Act) and oppose state-by-state laws. While the Main Street Fairness Act would actually make it easier for businesses to collect sales tax, state-by-state laws have become so numerous and varied that they make it extremely difficult for businesses to collect sales tax in more than one state.

One way that the Main Street Fairness Act makes it easier for businesses to collect sales tax is by authorizing online sales tax collection only in those states that have simplified their sales tax laws by joining the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA).

Although Florida’s recent bill to join SSUTA stalled, we would urge Florida lawmakers to pass that bill, and soon. Not only will it make it easier for businesses to collect Florida sales tax, but it will also put Florida in the perfect position to require all online retailers to collect sales tax when the Main Street Fairness Act—which now has the full support of California and Amazon behind it—becomes law.

Joining SSUTA will also make it clear to Congress that Florida, like California and Amazon, supports the Main Street Fairness Act.

Many states have been tempted to skip the step of joining SSUTA and go straight to requiring some online retailers (mostly large ones, like Amazon) to collect sales tax. California started out taking that approach. But as California and other states have discovered, that approach ends up hurting businesses, which have to deal with all the complexities of state-by-state sales tax laws, and in-state affiliate marketers, which are usually dropped by retailers so that the retailer can try to avoid collecting state sales tax. The end result is fewer jobs in the state and no increase in collected sales tax.

Joining SSUTA is the better approach. It simplifies sales tax collection for businesses while leveling the playing field between online and Main Street retailers. We hope this is the approach Florida decides to take.


TaxGirl guest post about Amazon and the Main Street Fairness Act

August 30, 2011
Forbes - TaxGirl Guest Post: Why Amazon Is Doing the Right Thing for Online Sales Tax

Forbes - TaxGirl Guest Post: Why Amazon Is Doing the Right Thing for Online Sales Tax

The infamous TaxGirl (Kelly Phillips Erb), a Forbes contributor, has published our CEO’s article!

Guest Post: Why Amazon Is Doing the Right Thing for Online Sales Tax

Our CEO wrote this opinion piece at the invitation of TaxGirl, for her to publish while on her well-deserved summer vacation.


Article looks at details of Main Street Fairness Act

August 11, 2011

An article by Sylvia Dion on SalesTaxSupport.com is unusual for its detailed examination of the Main Street Fairness Act and the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). If you’re curious about exactly what the Main Street Fairness Act does and how it affects SSUTA, we recommend you take a look—it’s both thorough and fair—which we can’t say very often when tracking this subject.

States where internet purchases are taxableHowever, it does have one error that we must correct:

The issue of whether sales made over the internet should be subject to sales tax has been widely discussed for at least decade now . . . .

As our regular readers know, sales tax is already due on online purchases—the issue that’s been debated is not “whether sales made over the internet should be subject to sales tax” but whether online retailers should collect sales tax just as bricks-and-mortar retailers do.

The fact that online purchases are already subject to sales tax, and always have been, is one of the most common misconceptions about online sales tax. For others, see our post on the common myths and facts about online sales tax.


Politico: Main Street Fairness Act to be introduced today

July 29, 2011

Politico is now reporting that the Main Street Fairness Act will be introduced today—we will keep you updated as we hear more.


Amazon v. California – Oh, what’s the word . . .

July 15, 2011
'Amazon Taxes' Fail To Deliver As Retailers Cut Ties

'Amazon Taxes' Fail To Deliver As Retailers Cut Ties

Investor’s Business Daily just published a brief article reiterating what we have been saying for a while: affiliate nexus laws are generally ineffective at increasing revenue.

The article covers most of the stakeholders’ views, including comments from Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation, Danny Diaz from the Alliance for Main Street Fairness, and Neil Osten from the National Conference of State Legislatures. The article even briefly refers to the Main Street Fairness Act, which will be introduced in Congress soon.

Strangely, the article fails to mention all the fireworks in California right now. As we (and many others) have been writing about for the last few days, last Friday Amazon reportedly filed papers with California’s attorney general for a referendum to repeal California’s recently enacted ABX1 28.

Fresno Bee: Opponents say Amazon's proposed referendum is unconstitutional

Opponents say Amazon's proposed referendum is unconstitutional

Under ABX1 28, the California Board of Equalization estimates, Amazon could collect and remit approximately $83M in sales tax this year; together, it projects, all remote retailers could collect about $200M. Of course, those BOE estimates apply only if Amazon and other online retailers actually comply with the new law—a reasonable expectation given that noncompliance is . . . oh, what’s the word . . . illegal (for the rest of us internet retailers, anyway). Now the internet has lit up with blog posts and tweets as well as print and broadcast media articles and editorials either praising or demonizing Amazon for refusing to collect sales tax and comply with California’s new law (don’t miss the exciting article in the Fresno Bee today).

As we said before:

While we appreciate and respect California’s need to fix the current imbalance related to sales tax collection obligations, which costs the state over $1.1 billion annually, we sincerely hope those entrusted to do the people’s work in Sacramento recognize that this matter must ultimately be resolved in Washington DC.

Under the Supreme Court’s 1967 National Bellas Hess vs. Illinois Department of Revenue ruling, the ability of states to compel remote or out-of-state businesses to collect local sales tax hinges on minimizing (or eliminating) burdens implied by such an obligation. In its majority opinion (now forty-four years ago), the Court ruled that

the 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.

So, unless and until California directly addresses these three points of undue burden, attempts to compel remote retailers to collect will not likely survive litigation and judicial review.

Fortunately, California has been working with 43 other states on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement since 2000 —a system that alleviates all of these burdens (and is FREE for retailers to implement). Governor Brown and the California legislature should urge California’s delegation in Congress to sponsor and work to pass the federal Main Street Fairness Act, which would eliminate the need for California to venture into such controversial interpretations and extensions of the concepts of nexus and would finally enable California to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax, just as any local retailer is required to do.

Ironically, Amazon yesterday announced it would be releasing a tablet device (like an iPad) by October. The California BOE is likely wondering if this new tablet was developed by Amazon’s Lab126 in Cupertino (the birthplace of the Kindle).


WV delegate John Doyle says online sales tax could mean tax cuts elsewhere

June 8, 2011

In an Associated Press article about West Virginia’s budget, state delegate John Doyle noted that if online retailers collected existing sales tax, instead of shifting that burden to their customers, the revenue generated could allow for tax cuts elsewhere:

Doyle, a past president of the agreement’s governing board, said increased revenue is one of several reasons to pursue Internet sales tax revenues — but not the most important.

 ”Even if we didn’t need the revenue, we should still do this and then reduce the tax burden elsewhere,” Doyle said Friday.

He gave the example of the state tax on groceries, which generates about as much revenue as online sales tax would if retailers collected it:

States can expect to lose $11.4 billion in 2012 from Internet sales that will go untaxed, state Deputy Revenue Secretary Mark Muchow said Friday, citing a recent Tennessee study. West Virginia will miss $50.6 million in such potential revenues, the study estimated. . . .

Muchow estimated that the 2 percent tax [on groceries] will yield between $52 million and $55 million annually.

“It’s almost a fair trade,” Doyle said.

It’s an argument for online sales tax that hasn’t gotten much attention, but we have heard that legislators in other states are considering cutting taxes elsewhere if they are able to require online retailers to collect sales tax. The West Virginia tax on groceries is a good example: Most states do not tax groceries at all, but even though many West Virginia lawmakers advocate eliminating the tax entirely, the $52-56 million it brings in is necessary for vital state services. If an existing tax that mostly goes uncollected were to be collected and provide enough revenue, the groceries tax could be eliminated.

The entire article is well worth reading for both background on the issue and Doyle’s take on it.

Update: There seems to be some confusion over a quote from Doyle at the end:

“I believe that the Internet should be a tax-free zone,” Doyle said. “We’re better off not taxing it, but it’s still wrong for the federal government to tell us that particularly because they’re allowing states like Texas and New Hampshire to tax it.”

This seems to be a contradiction at first—up to this point in the article, Doyle has supported online sales tax. However, the paragraph preceding the quote supplies the necessary context to understand Doyle’s true meaning:

He added that while states should also be allowed to decide whether to tax Internet access, he favors an across-the-board federal ban. The problem there is an existing federal moratorium allows a handful of states to maintain their access taxes, he said.

In other words, Doyle believes that internet access should not be taxed—and that existing sales taxes on online sales should be collected by retailers. Far from being contradictory, these positions seem quite sensible to us.


Bezos to shareholders: Simplified sales tax will happen

June 8, 2011
Seattle Times

Seattle Times: Amazon tells shareholders it will stand firm on sales taxes

According to an article in the Seattle Times, at a shareholder meeting on Tuesday Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos expressed support for the Main Street Fairness Act (without mentioning it by name):

Bezos reiterated his support of federal efforts to minimize the many differences among states on sales-tax collection from Internet retailers. Asked by one shareholder to look ahead 10 years, Bezos said, “I believe we’ll have the simplified sales-tax initiative passed.”

“I hope it might happen much sooner than that,” he added. “It’s the right thing to do, and I think it would be great for Amazon.”

However, he reiterated that Amazon is opposed to state-by-state legislation attempting to require online retailers to collect sales tax.

One clarification: It may be difficult to understand from the article that sales tax is already due on online sales. Currently the consumer is required to send the tax due directly to the state if the retailer doesn’t collect it.

The Main Street Fairness Act would allow states that have adopted sales tax simplification measures (thus making it easy for retailers to collect sales tax for multiple states) to require online retailers to collect sales tax.

 


State Senator Luke Kenley in the Wall Street Journal

April 22, 2011

Did you see last Friday’s Wall Street Journal? It features a letter to the editor from Indiana State Senator Luke Kenley, who is also president of the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board.

Kenley is responding to an earlier WSJ article on online sales tax that failed to mention Streamlined and the role it plays in making the online collection of sales tax easier for retailers. Kenley sets the record straight.

We particularly like these lines from Kenley’s letter:

Streamlined is a state sovereignty exercise [that] promotes simplicity [and] uniformity and respects the principle of not putting an undue burden on interstate commerce.

No one wants to pay tax, but we all recognize that some taxes are necessary to provide governmental services. Those taxes are best when they are broad-based, low rate, evenhanded, fair and nondiscriminatory among competitors in the marketplace.


Storefront Backtalk asks: “Where are the consumer advocates?”

April 11, 2011

This post in the StorefrontBacktalk blog ponders why there have been no consumer advocacy groups fighting against affiliate nexus laws. The answer, though, is contained in the post:

Rightly or wrongly (OK, it’s wrongly), consumers in those states have been avoiding paying state sales tax.

It would seem to me that a consumer advocacy group would be hard-pressed to make a pitch that says, in effect, “don’t take away a citizen’s right to evade taxes.”

Instead, the debate continues to focus on the issue of fairness—whether it is fair that only bricks-and-mortar retailers collect the tax, and whether it is fair to ask online retailers to calculate and collect the tax.

Today large online retailers easily manage millions of items for sale at any given moment, and even the smallest online retailer can calculate accurate shipping rates to every corner of the country in a blink of an eye. It is no longer too difficult to keep track of a few thousand tax jurisdictions.

What’s more, comprehensive sales tax management services are available—for free—making it even easier to calculate sales tax online. TaxCloud calculates the sales tax due for any purchase anywhere in the country. It is certified to comply with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) and can therefore also prepare, file, and remit sales tax for states that are members of SSUTA. The service is completely free to retailers.

Perhaps another reason consumer groups are shying away from the debate is because it is local community services that are losing out on uncollected sales tax as more shopping shifts online.

What does surprise me, though, is that the Performance Marketing Association and other groups that support the affiliates have not been coming out in favor of Streamlined and federal legislation that would require ALL online retailers, not just those who sell through affiliates, to collect and remit sales tax.


Florida measure to join SSUTA passes Senate

April 6, 2011

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, the Florida State Senate has passed a measure that would allow Florida to join the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). We blogged about the introduction of the measure here.

The author of the article spoke to the sole senator who voted against the measure:

Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, the sole vote against the measure in the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee, said she was uncomfortable voting for the bill because it was adding another tax to Floridians.

This is a frequent misconception. We’re happy to reassure Sen. Flores that joining SSUTA does not mean creating a new tax or raising existing taxes.

Sales tax is already due on most online purchases; when the online retailer doesn’t collect it, by law the consumer is supposed to calculate the correct amount of tax due and send it to the state with their tax returns. In practice, however, few consumers do. Estimates are that last year alone, uncollected sales tax on online purchases in Florida reached $608.2 million.

By joining SSUTA, Florida would lay the groundwork for requiring all online retailers to collect sales tax. Although collecting sales tax is voluntary right now for online retailers without a physical presence in the state, federal legislation is in the works that would allow all SSUTA member states to require online retailers to collect sales tax.

Becoming a SSUTA member state is also the first step toward leveling the playing field for local Florida retailers, which have to collect sales tax while online retailers don’t. In addition, joining SSUTA would send a message to Washington, DC, that it’s time for federal legislation that allows states to require all online retailers to collect sales tax.

We’re excited that the Florida Senate has approved the measure, and we hope to hear soon that the House has, too!


Small business owners testify in Texas

March 29, 2011
The Statesman: Small business owners testify in Texas

The Statesman: Small business owners testify in Texas

An article in The Statesman (Texas) describes a meeting of the Texas House Ways and Means Committee, which is considering how best to deal with the issue of online sales tax—a particularly sensitive issue in the state because of Amazon’s threat to close its warehouse there rather than collect sales tax for Texas, as it is required to if it has a physical presence in the state.

What we found most interesting was the testimony of small business owners before the committee:

Gregg Burger , general manager at Precision Camera in Austin, said his store last year had $17 million in sales and collected $1.5 million in sales tax. He estimated that Precision Camera loses about $5 million per year in sales to online retailers.

This is the first time we’ve seen a number that indicates just how much money local retailers are losing to online retailers, and it’s not a small number—it works out to about 30% of the store’s annual sales.

The testimony got emotional at times, showing just how important the issue is to local small business owners:

“We are losing tons and tons of business out of the state,” Burger said. “We are losing millions of dollars by letting out-of-state competitors take our jobs and our money. We want to collect the tax. Please, please, let’s get this through.”

The article also describes a pending bill that would “amend the state tax code to say that a company can’t be classified as a retailer required to collect sales tax if it, or a subsidiary, operates or uses “only a fulfillment center … or a computer server” in Texas. Clearly, it’s intended to allow Amazon to keep its fulfillment center in Texas open without having to collect sales tax for Texas.

But the bill contradicts the Supreme Court ruling that says a retailer with a physical presence in a state must collect sales tax for that state. Should the it pass, we predict that we’ll see court challenges and appeals that will prevent it from being enacted.

We also found a quote by the author of the bill, Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, interesting. The article quotes her as saying that “she is working ‘to make sure there’s balance in the bill to avoid hurting “mom-and-pop” businesses but not create more problems for Amazon.’ “

By saying she’s working to avoid hurting mom-and-pop businesses with her bill, she’s implicitly acknowledging that they are hurt when online retailers avoid collecting sales tax—if they weren’t, she wouldn’t have to work to avoid hurting them.

We’re glad to see that word is getting out: when online retailers don’t have to collect sales tax, it hurts local retailers who do. Let’s level the playing field and require all retailers, online and off, to collect sales tax.


Virginia newspaper calls for sales tax fairness

March 25, 2011

Yesterday’s editorial in the Newport News Daily Press came out strongly in favor of requiring all retailers to collect the local sales tax that is due on purchases. The editors state:  ”It makes absolutely no sense that if you buy the latest best-seller at your local bookstore, you pay sales tax—say, $1 on a $20 book. Buy the same book on Amazon.com, and you pay no sales tax.”

The argument about fairness is always framed in terms of the retailer—i.e., is it fair that an online retailer does not have to collect sales tax when a bricks-and-mortar retailer does? This editorial puts a new twist on the fairness issue, asking whether it is fair that one resident pays sales tax on an item when his neighbor, who buys the same item online, does not.

Bricks and mortar retailers add more than bricks and mortar to the state. They add jobs—sales clerks, managers, warehouse workers, drivers, etc. Many of them also contribute to their community, both tangibles and intangibles. The online bookstore isn’t the one that hosts story time for local children and readings by local poets. The online retailer isn’t the one that donates supplies for a civic group’s community service project. The manager at an online site isn’t the individual who helps a high school strengthen its vocational programs and get businesses involved, as the former manager of Patrick Henry Mall, Roger Brown, did for many years. Closing this loophole will, collectively, benefit taxpayers. It’s costing states billions of dollars in sales tax revenue. If they could collect it, they could reduce the pressure on income and other taxes.

The writer closes by suggesting a “uniform national sales tax” on online purchases. Although that’s not possible, for numerous reasons, a standard set of sales tax rules, policies, and procedures has been under development by 44 states and the business community for over ten years—the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.

Unlike the author, we believe Congress is finally willing to level the playing field for online and offline retailers alike, and we expect the introduction of the Main Street Fairness Act soon.


The mechanics of online sales tax

March 22, 2011

As the argument that online retailers should collect sales tax has been gaining steam, some people have begun wondering about the mechanics of online sales tax collection. Exactly how would it work? What would an online retailer—especially one smaller than Amazon and big-box retailers—need to do to collect sales tax for all 13,000 tax jurisdictions in the country?

The Streamlined Sales Tax initiative has provided the first part of the answer. It’s worked to reduce the costs and complexities of collecting sales tax for retailers and states alike, particularly for retailers that collect sales tax for multiple states. It does this by creating standard tax categories and definitions that every Streamlined member state must adopt—so that, for instance, a candy apple would be in the tax category “candy” in every member state, instead of being considered candy in one state and fruit in another. The actual tax rate isn’t affected—each state still decides on its own the applicable rate and whether items are taxable or exempt—but the standardization and simplification Streamlined provides means that retailers have a much easier time collecting sales tax for multiple states.

But the simplification that Streamlined provides is only part of the answer. The other part of the answer is technology, which is essential to keep track of the 13,000+ tax codes in the country. Technology providers have stepped in with software and services that provide various levels of sales tax management.

Recognizing the key role technology (and, therefore, technology providers) plays in collecting sales tax online, the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board established a certification process whereby technology providers have their systems tested and verified by each of the Streamlined member states. Upon successful completion of this process, these companies earn the title of “Certified Service Provider” (CSP) and are authorized to perform all of the sales tax functions for companies. Due to the logistical complexity of the certification process (it takes about a year of coordinated efforts among all member states to certify a CSP), companies may apply to become CSPs only during a brief application period every other year.

FedTax was designated a CSP on July 1, 2010. We are currently the only CSP that is providing its services at absolutely no cost to merchants.

As a Certified Service Provider, we handle every aspect of sales tax calculation, collection, and remittance for our clients. Our TaxCloud service calculates, in real time, the sales tax due on any transaction. It determines whether an item is tax-exempt, manages entity exemption certificates, and automatically integrates changes and updates to tax codes, rates, and jurisdictions—for every jurisdiction in the nation. Finally, TaxCloud keeps track of all collected sales taxes to be remitted by retailers , generates and files all state-by-state sales tax returns, and remits tax payments to all applicable jurisdictions.

What’s more, TaxCloud is extremely easy for anyone to use. Most retailers are able to set up TaxCloud in less than 20 minutes, and it can be integrated into virtually any accounting or e-commerce shopping cart system.

Because we are a CSP, we take full responsibility for any state audit requests on behalf of our TaxCloud clients. In addition, as a CSP we are compensated by SSUTA-participating states, so we can provide TaxCloud to retailers for free. In short, we’re offering a service that handles all sales tax management obligations for retailers at absolutely no cost.

If you’d like to learn more about TaxCloud, check it out here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 402 other followers