Remote Transactions Parity Act
derryb
Posts: 37,024 ✭✭✭✭✭
Ebay has provided a simple way for all to let their elected officials know that they strongly disagree with the proposed "Remote Transaction Parity Act," another attempt to require very cumbersome and expensive tax collecting by internet sellers. Even if you are not an ebay member you can use their link to send a strong message to your officials.
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
0
Comments
<< <i>Not taxing online sales actually hurts small businesses. >>
Not any where near the pain caused by doing the reporting, collecting and forwarding of taxes to 9,600 state and local taxing jurisdictions. Odds are a seller will not even be aware of the one that charges him with tax evasion. This is not the same as a retail outlet that only has to deal only with its residence state and local tax jurisdiction.
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
The Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015 restores free market principles to retailers by removing the government-sanctioned tax subsidy that is currently given to online-only sellers. Importantly, it also strikes a balance between states' rights and regulatory protections for remote and multichannel sellers.
"This bill is the product of a thorough and inclusive stakeholder process and enjoys broad support by the business community," said Betsy Laird, senior vice president of Global Public Policy for ICSC. "The Senate and the House have both spent significant time deliberating this issue. It is now time for Congress to stand up for local retailers and pass this job creating, bi-partisan, common sense bill."
The Remote Transactions Parity Act would countenance an enormous expansion in state tax-collection authority by wiping away the “physical presence standard,” a baseline protection that shields taxpayers from harassment by out-of-state collectors. Current law dictates that a state can only require a business to collect its sales tax if it is physically present within its boundaries. Far from a “loophole” intended to advantage the Internet, it is the result of the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Quill v. North Dakota, which was grounded in a bedrock foundational principle of federalism: states must not be allowed to extend their taxation and regulatory authorities beyond their borders. Dismantling this protection for remote retail sales would create a very slippery slope for states to attempt collection of business or even income taxes from out-of-state entities.
It also subjects all sellers on an “electronic marketplace” like eBay or Amazon to its requirements, no matter their sales volume. As a result, the RTPA would ensnare dramatically more businesses in burdensome collection schemes than the misguided MFA.
State taxing authority ENDS at the state line. Only the Federal government has taxing authority on an interstate basis.
Certainly companies with presence in a state (even temporary as in card shows) should collect the state sales tax, but
creating a bureaucratic mess that will cost even more to administer so that out of state vendors get taxed by the state
where the purchaser resides is unacceptable.
If the state wants the sales tax revenue so badly then they can pass laws, regulations, etc. that incentivize companies
getting a physical presence in their state.
Dave
<< <i>If the state wants the sales tax revenue so badly then they can pass laws, regulations, etc. that incentivize companies
getting a physical presence in their state. >>
They currently have laws that require the BUYER of an out of state item to report the purchase and pay the applicable sales tax to his home state. Since states are unsuccessful or unwilling to enforce it, once again they want to require businesses, at great cost, to do their job for them.
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
<< <i>
<< <i>If the state wants the sales tax revenue so badly then they can pass laws, regulations, etc. that incentivize companies
getting a physical presence in their state. >>
They currently have laws that require the BUYER of an out of state item to report the purchase and pay the applicable sales tax to his home state. Since states are unsuccessful or unwilling to enforce it, once again they want to require businesses, at great cost, to do their job for them. >>
Do you actually own an online business and/or brick and mortar?
Carry on.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Exit bunker, enter Matrix. LOL
<< <i>Taken from this article:
The Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015 restores free market principles to retailers by removing the government-sanctioned tax subsidy that is currently given to online-only sellers. Importantly, it also strikes a balance between states' rights and regulatory protections for remote and multichannel sellers.
"This bill is the product of a thorough and inclusive stakeholder process and enjoys broad support by the business community," said Betsy Laird, senior vice president of Global Public Policy for ICSC. "The Senate and the House have both spent significant time deliberating this issue. It is now time for Congress to stand up for local retailers and pass this job creating, bi-partisan, common sense bill." >>
How many times have you heard the description common sense bill? This should be the only red flag needed to cause concern. Wasn't the Affordable Health Care Act a common sense bill? How did that work out? Sounds like a typical Fed maneuver to me. Send a letter and protect the free market!
He offers fantastic customer service and is a great guy to do business (29+ years and still going strong)....he has a TON of loyal, very loyal customers... BUT, as I said, I have seen with my own eyes how the online marketplace (relating to taxes) has destroyed small businesses. I personally know dozens of small business owners (brick and mortar) and I am telling you this tax thing is a real issue.
Now, I own an online business. Will this cause me more paperwork? You betcha. the Act may not be perfect, will certainly need some tweaking, but it is a step in the right direction Wasn't Quill/ND written to Congress the authority to change it? It's not 1992 anymore.
Lastly, I respect the other view. I just don't see this being as big of a deal as some people are making it out to be
All I can say is bah and I doubt this will pass all the way through.
This is an issue at the state level. Congress has tried this before and it has been shut down before.
Whether you are for or against taxation on out of state internet purchases doesn't really need to be discussed to the point folks get the ban hammer.
I will add dang you Amazon for starting to collect sales taxes in Ohio!!!
<< <i>Time to storm the ships in the harbor and dump some tea into the bay!!!!
All I can say is bah and I doubt this will pass all the way through.
This is an issue at the state level. Congress has tried this before and it has been shut down before.
Whether you are for or against taxation on out of state internet purchases doesn't really need to be discussed to the point folks get the ban hammer.
I will add dang you Amazon for starting to collect sales taxes in Ohio!!! >>
Same here in Maryland regarding Amazon, since they opened some jumbo distribution warehouse in Baltimore. I sent off the form email and got an auto-response from my House Rep. Can't say they'll pay attention to my email, but at least they received it.