Summary

2/14/2013--Introduced.Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 - Authorizes each member state under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (the multistate agreement for the administration and collection of sales... Read More

Status

This bill was introduced on Feb 14, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not passed.

Bill Text

A BILL

To restore States' sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAXES.

(a) Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.--Each Member State under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement is authorized to require all sellers not qualifying for the small seller exception described in subsection (c) to collect and remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote sales sourced to that Member State pursuant to the provisions of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, but only if the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement includes the minimum simplification requirements in subsection (b)(2). A State may exercise authority under this Act beginning 90 days after the State publishes notice of the State's intent to exercise the authority under this Act, but no earlier than the first day of the calendar quarter that is at least 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Alternative.--A State that is not a Member State under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement is authorized notwithstanding any other provision of law to require all sellers not qualifying for the small seller exception described in subsection (c) to collect and remit sales and use taxes with...

Read Full Text

Sentiment Map

Select:

Nation

204 Supporting
4814 Opposing
4% 96%

State: CA

11 Supporting
328 Opposing
3% 97%

District: 1st

0 Supporting
12 Opposing
0% 100%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

February 14, 2013 WASHINGTON—The National Governors Association (NGA) today released the following statement regarding the introduction of Marketplace Fairness, legislation long advocated for by NGA. “The National Governors Association is encouraged by the bicameral, bipartisan introduction of Marketplace Fairness legislation. This issue has long been a top priority for NGA. “Marketplace fairness is about collecting taxes that are already owed on retail sales—it is not a new tax nor a tax on the Internet. Annually, states fail to collect more than $23 billion from taxable transactions conducted over the Internet or through catalogues. This legislation levels the playing field between Main Street and e-street. It means fair competition for consumers, helps states collect what is owed and does not cost the federal government a dime. “This is an issue that Congress can and should fix. It’s an example of federal action that builds off state successes and demonstrates a desire to support innovation in a 21st century economy.” http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/2013-news-releases/col2-content/national-governors-association-p.html

Share

Supports. (Source: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=dc86c21c-530d-4802-8d8b-4a3a2745cbd7)

Share

Supports. (Source: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=dc86c21c-530d-4802-8d8b-4a3a2745cbd7)

Share

Supports. (Source: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=dc86c21c-530d-4802-8d8b-4a3a2745cbd7)

Share

Supports. (Source: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=dc86c21c-530d-4802-8d8b-4a3a2745cbd7)

Share

ICSC is striving to create a fair and level playing field for all retailers whether they sell online, in a mall or on Main Street. Congressional action is necessary to fix the problem of online sales tax collection ? For the past 20 years, States have been unable to enforce their own sales and use tax laws on sales by out-of-state, catalog, and online sellers due to the 1992 Supreme Court decision Quill Corp v. North Dakota. ? Because this is a matter of interstate commerce, Congress MUST grant the authority needed for states enforce sales tax collection and remittance from out-of-state sellers. The Internet marketplace is rapidly expanding – It does not make sense to treat one channel of sales differently than another. ? Online sales are growing 4 times faster than sales made at brick-and-mortar establishments. o According to comScore, online sales during the 2012 holiday period reached a record $42.3 billion, up 14% from the same period last year. o According to ICSC research, overall retail sales only grew by 3.1% during this holiday season (based on chain store sales). The National Retail Federation reported that overall holiday sales were only up 3%, lower than its forecasted 4.1%. ? In 2011 e-commerce represented more than 16.6% of retail sales. (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, GAFO sales) ? In 2012 states were expected to lose as much as $23 billion in uncollected revenue as a result of online-only sellers not collecting sales taxes. (Source: 2009 University of Tennessee Study) Federal legislation will NOT raise taxes but it WILL remove the tax burden being placed on consumers. ? Consumers are currently required under state laws to pay sales and use taxes on the goods they purchase, but if the retailer does not collect it, it becomes the consumer’s responsibility to remit it to the state. ? Online sellers are not required to collect the tax in the same way that local businesses do – which puts local businesses at a disadvantage. ? Consumers can be audited and charged with penalties for failing to pay sales and use taxes, but it is a tax that is difficult for states to enforce. Federal legislation WILL restore states’ rights ? Language being discussed by supporters would empower the States and allow them to collect sales and use taxes two ways: States can collect under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) or they can adopt minimum simplification requirements. ? States would have the option to choose the best solution for them, and not be required to conform to a one-size-fits-all model. http://www.icsc.org/salestaxfairness/involved/MFA%20Talking%20points%20021413.pdf

Share
Show More Positions

Organizations Opposing

While often referred to as an “Internet sales tax” bill, the legislation has far broader and more complex implications. There is no Internet exemption from sales taxes; in fact, sales taxes are already collected for the vast majority of online sales. Instead, the proposal concerns the power of states over businesses outside of their borders. Specifically, the proposal would overturn a Supreme Court decision setting limits on a state’s ability to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes for them, turning every out-of-state retailer into a sales tax collector for nearly 10,000 separate state, local and municipal tax jurisdictions. This would be a dangerous extension of state power into other states. Not only would it place costly burdens on retailers, but it would allow states to impose taxes in a way that favors their local businesses over out-of-state firms, who have no representation in the taxing state. As the Heritage Foundation explains: They seek enactment of [the Marketplace Fairness Act] so that states can prefer in-state businesses over out-of-state businesses in the kind of anti-competitive economic discrimination the U.S. Constitution was in part adopted to prevent. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “[p]reservation of local industry by protecting it from the rigors of interstate competition is the hallmark of the economic protectionism that the Commerce Clause prohibits.” Heritage Action understands there are conservatives in Congress who are supportive of the legislation. In addition to the reasons above, the confusion amongst conservatives surrounding the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 is why Heritage Action is key voting against this legislation. Heritage Action opposes the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act and will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

Share
Heritage Action 2 years ago

February 14, 2013 — The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) expressed disappointment with the introduction today of the “Marketplace Fairness Act” in the Senate by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and in the House of Representatives by Representative Steve Womack (R-AR). The bill, including the section codifying the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, does not provide the needed harmonization across state taxing structures. Neither does it sufficiently reduce the deficiencies that led the Supreme Court in its 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision to restrict states from requiring remote sellers to collect sales tax in the first place. This bill would grant states the authority to reach beyond their borders to conscript American businesses with no presence in the state and force them to become the unpaid tax collectors for the state. This is bad policy as it interferes with the free flow of commerce among the states, a principle upon which the United States was founded. In these difficult economic circumstances, placing new, unfunded mandates on out-of-state companies to comply with complex and changing tax structures, tax holidays, and tax thresholds in many states around the country will hamper e-commerce, a fast growing segment in our economy. The bill, which purports to simplify the American sales tax system, actually expands it. The bill allows: • States to maintain nearly 10,000 local sales tax jurisdictions with their own tax rates, tax holidays and thresholds; • 46 states to conduct their own audits of conscripted American businesses across the country (requiring those businesses to hire tax attorneys, etc.); • 46 states to create their own definitions of what each taxable good is (how much juice in a drink is needed to not be classified as a soft drink, for example); • 46 states to interpret key terms for collection of sales tax, such as defining a “sales price,” and • 46 states to create their own tax return, filing schedule and deadlines. This bill also enters a troubling area by allowing the long-arm of state taxing authority to grab non-citizen businesses. There is no preemption of state attempts to stretch sales and use tax laws beyond their borders to hook out of state businesses. The Marketplace Fairness Act allows such action. This is a dangerous road — one which should not be taken. DMA believes that Congress should reject this effort and instead seek real efficiency and harmonization among state taxing regimes in order to achieve a truly streamlined system of sales tax collection. Simplification — this is not. http://thedma.org/2013/02/14/dma-expresses-disappointment-with-marketplace-fairness-act/

Share

The Marketplace Fairness Act attempts to force remote sellers to comply with use tax collection and reporting for 45 states and more than 9,600 jurisdictions. This will place an extreme burden on businesses around the country, causing thousands of businesses to close down because the overhead costs will be too high. There is a much less burdensome means of accomplishing the goals of the bill, namely to require remote sellers to report remote sales to the states. Then the states can periodically send letters to citizens with requests for use tax payments. This would accomplish all the goals of the MFA while not overburdening interstate commerce.

Share

Users Supporting

I support S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because...I do support it because, I do believe the states do deserve some sales tax to deal with enforcement issues involved in products being transported in their state that may arise, so I believe it should be a reduced sales tax. You know we have gas tax providing for the use of the roads and airways to get the product to its destination and we have city, county and state taxes piled on the businesses involved in getting these products delivered and in some cases, businesses based locally. It seems wrong that a person should be taxed just because they choose to purchase a product, but for the seen and unforseen enforcement issues involved, I do approve of a 2% sales tax on internet purchases.

Share
CA
49
paythedeficit
CA-49
1 year ago

I support S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because...it's the responsibility of the individual States collect Use taxes due (and the responsibility of their respective citizens to pay them) and not the duty of a business in a separate State to remit a sales tax for them (unless they happen to have a nexus in the other State, which this bill explicitly will not create) nor is it the business of the Federal government to impose said remittance. I believe that this act may be unconstitutional ... or, at least violate the federalist underpinnings of our system of governance. Also, the regulatory overhead created by this act would be a nightmare! Businesses would not only have to track sales rates and exemptions of the states where they have a nexus established, but also every other State's sales tax law in the Union! This is especially true in the states that don't have a sales tax whatsoever as they get zero benefit and bear only costs. Also, the cutoff of $1,000,000 annual sales could actually hurt businesses that are technically "small businesses" by discouraging growth should a business have $900,000 in sales but would go over the mark if they opened another location.

Share
IN
2
MerlinYoda
IN-2
1 year ago

I support the general concept of S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, although I have not read the entire bill because...the present system gives an unfair advantage to online sales over local, brick and mortar businesses. In looking at the comments of those who oppose this legislation, it is clear that that vast majority completely misunderstand it. The opponents view it as some sort of a new tax. It simply is not. It just requires every company doing business in a state to comply with their tax laws. This is very easily accomplished with the modern computer systems available and widely in use today.

Share
NV
2
RyansDad
NV-2
1 year ago

I support S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because the state sales tax is the law of the land. Very simply, there is no difference between a brick and mortar store or a virtual store on the Internet.

Share
MI
11
JYHarris
MI-11
1 year ago

I support S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because... Much as I enjoy getting a deal online, I think that any added complexity to small businesses (selling online) required to collect and report taxes to the state would be mitigated by the potential benefits of promoting in- person small business sales at the local level, and by creating jobs in retail management and in accounting.

Share
CT
4
Anonymous562782
CT-4
1 year ago

I support S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because I believe individual consumers are getting-around the cost of taxes by buying online, removing a source of government revenue on a state-level.

Share
MI
1
macetw
MI-1
1 year ago

Users Opposing

I oppose S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because new taxes are a bad idea. Forcing payment of state taxes across state borders provides a dismal precedent. The Internet has created a lot of jobs and generated a ton of money while being loosely regulated. I see no compelling reason whatsoever to break this model and subsume it into the wishes of corporate America. Let us protect this goose, and her golden eggs! Regards, Myles McManus

Share
NY
4
Anonymous3099770
NY-4
8 months ago

I oppose S. 336, The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, because it will penalize many consumers and small businesses that buy or sell goods through the thousands of small, independent online retailers in this country. This bill would add a tremendous accounting and tax preparation burden to small business owners who operate a website for some part or all of their sales. I ask you to vote no this legislation.

Share
PA
1
DGF7691
PA-1
8 months ago

I oppose S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because, quite frankly, we're way overtaxed now, and this tax will have a damaging effect on both our economy and on individuals. Government works or us, we don't work for the government, and it had better start remembering that.

Share
NC
13
Jhthurman
NC-13
10 months ago

I oppose S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013

Share
IL
6
Anonymous146708
IL-6
1 year ago

I oppose S. 336: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 because...Sales Tax Hotel Tax School Tax Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Excise Taxes Property Tax Cigarette Tax Medicare Tax Inventory Tax Car Rental Tax Real Estate Tax Well Permit Tax Fuel Permit Tax Inheritance Tax Road Usage Tax CDL license Tax Dog License Tax State Income Tax Food License Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Gross Receipts Tax Social Security Tax Service Charge Tax Fishing License Tax Federal Income Tax Building Permit Tax IRS Interest Charges Hunting License Tax Marriage License Tax Corporate Income Tax Personal Property Tax Accounts Receivable Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Workers Compensation Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone State and Local Tax IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service FeeTax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax ....and you want to add another one...Reduce Spending...cut departments...lower government pay and benefits to private sector equivalent...do away with most taxes and move to national sales tax fixed below 10%...reform entitlements so they are voluntary...cut military industrial complex in half...the treasury takes back the power to create debt free money with near zero inflation policy...stop excessive regulations...and in general just leave us alone.

Share
OR
3
dutn77
OR-3
1 year ago

Bill Summary

2/14/2013--Introduced.Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 - Authorizes each member state under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (the multistate agreement for the administration and collection of sales and use taxes adopted on November 12, 2002) to require all sellers not qualifying for a small-seller exception (applicable to sellers with annual gross receipts in total U.S. remote sales not exceeding $1 million) to collect and remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote sales under provisions of the Agreement, but only if such Agreement includes minimum simplification requirements relating to the administration of the tax, audits, and streamlined filing. Defines "remote sale" as a sale of goods or services into a state in which the seller would not legally be required to pay, collect, or remit state or local sales and use taxes unless provided by this Act.

S. 335 A bill to provide financing assistance for qualified water infrastruc... S. 337 Bring Jobs Home Act