Online Sales-Tax Bill Passes Senate, With Surprises Ahead In The House

Written by Frank Hayes
May 8th, 2013

Now that the U.S. Senate has passed its bill to allow states to force online retailers to collect sales tax, the question for both brick-and-mortar chains and E-tailers is how quickly—or slowly—the bill will move through the House on its way to becoming law. The 69-27 vote on the Marketplace Fairness Act was lopsided, as expected. But that may be the end of any foregone conclusions as the bill heads into a much less certain future.

One assumption has already gone by the boards: House Speaker John Boehner plans to send the bill to the House Judiciary Committee, instead of the Ways and Means Committee, which would normally handle tax legislation. The Judiciary chairman, Robert Goodlatte, has said he has reservations about the bill, and hasn’t yet scheduled any hearings on it. And as anyone who has followed the progress of this over the years knows, in a Congressional committee, the chairman can decide whether a bill lives or dies, no matter how the rest of his colleagues might vote.

In the Senate, for example, versions of the online sales-tax bill spent more than a decade languishing in the Finance Committee, where chairman Max Baucus also said he had reservations about it—and never let it be voted out of committee. (This year, the bill’s sponsors circumvented Baucus to get a vote on the bill.)

But Goodlatte’s reservations aren’t the kiss of death, at least not yet. With strong bipartisan support and a large margin of victory in the Senate, the bill at least has some momentum going into the House.

It also has the advantage that landing in the Judiciary committee paints it as a matter of redrawing legal lines rather than a new tax (which is what assignment to Ways and Means would imply).

Goodlatte’s concerns appear to be about the difficulty small online merchants will have dealing with so many tax jurisdictions. That may simply be code for “raise the minimum volume of out-of-state online taxable sales to $10 million,” something that was likely to happen in any case. That’s a tweak that would probably slow the bill down a little.

On the other hand, if Goodlatte wants a standard nationwide online sales-tax rate, things would likely get complicated for both retailers and state taxing authorities. That could throw out any chance of having the bill signed into law in this session of Congress.

Another unknown is exactly how the opposition will shape up when (and if) the bill emerges from committee, particularly among anti-tax House Republicans. That may not be insurmountable, in part because technically online tax collection isn’t a new tax, so it wouldn’t violate their anti-tax pledges.

But that position on the part of some Congressmen is not a foregone conclusion either. And there may yet be other surprises—after all, for all the anti-tax reputation of Republicans, the two most vigorous opponents of the bill in the Senate were Democrats.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.