- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Would you shop less online if you had to pay sales tax at the point of purchase? This may happen if the Marketplace Fairness Act, a.k.a. the “Internet Sales Tax,” is passed. On May 6, 2013, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013. The legislation has now moved on to the House of Representatives for consideration.
The Marketplace Fairness Act requires online retailers netting more than $1 million annually across all states to collect sales tax from customers in states with sales tax even if the retailer has no substantial physical presence there. Under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, Internet retailers do not have to collect sales tax from customers where the retailer has no major physical operation. Currently, consumers are supposed to report online purchases in their annual tax filings, but few actually report. Thus, states lose an estimated $11 billion every year.
The bill was introduced into the Senate in order to put all businesses on a level playing field. Out-of-state online catalog retailers operate within different states, but they do not have to follow the same laws as other business, namely the collection of sales tax on purchases. Interestingly, Amazon is in favor of the bill, while eBay is fighting for some changes. Amazon has been expanding its business into new states in order to enable its same day delivery service. Thus, it has to pay sales tax in several new states even under the current regime. eBay, on the other hand, wants the small business exemption to be expanded to cover online businesses selling less than $10 million annually and employing fewer than 50 people. It wants better protection for small businesses that use the Internet.
What do you think? Will you continue to buy online if the Act is passed?
Recent Blog Posts
- Controlling the Uncontrollable: UK Taking the Driver’s Seat in Driverless Car Technology
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution