Why pay sales tax when you can buy the milk online!
In a press release dated today, Jim Oberweis asserts that State Sen. Chris Lauzen “would have been opposed to [a bill] ensuring that the Internet remains tax-free -- based on his February 25, 2005, introduction and sponsorship of SB 2080, a bill to correct 'the current lack of enforcement of the Use Tax Act and the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act as they now apply to Internet transactions.'”
What Oberweis doesn't seem to understand is that while internet access is not taxed (per the “Internet Tax Freedom Act”), it is not a "tax-free" zone. Regular state sales tax still applies to purchases made online, and the bill Lauzen sponsored was about streamlining the collection of those taxes (and dedicating 80% of resulting revenue to education). Oberweis's confusion on this issue is rather troublesome when you consider that his own business has an on-line store.
Furthermore, to suggest that Lauzen's sponsorship of SB 2080 puts him at odds with the ITFA is ridiculous, because the Senate bill specifically exempted subscriber line services from state and local telecommunications taxes.
Instead of misleading people about Lauzen's position on the federal bill, maybe Oberweis should take the time to understand the state bill Lauzen sponsored, and then explain just what exactly his position is on that - especially since it concerns part of his business's operations!
7 comments:
From the summary of the Bill
1) extend until November 1, 2011, the moratorium on state taxation of Internet access and electronic commerce and the exemption from such moratorium for states with previously enacted Internet tax laws (grandfather provisions);
Sounds like more than just a moratorium on 'access' taxes it also sounds like a moratorium on e commerce taxes.
Yes, if you buy something from an on-line vendor who has a nexis in your state you need to pay them sales taxes. The point of this bill is to prevent states like Illinois putting the use tax on the transaction and make the vendor have to collect it when they don't have a nexis in Illinois.
Same reason when you hear ads on late night TV for CDs only people in some states have to pay tax on it because the seller has a nexis in that state.
As for the Lauzen bill I have no idea about that one.
But lets not refer to just 'access' when talking about the house bill.
“As for the Lauzen bill I have no idea about that one.”
Neither does Jim Oberweis, which is my point here. His claim that Lauzen would have opposed the Internet Tax Freedom Act is based on a fallacious understanding of SB 2080.
You are right that the ITFA does also prohibit discriminatory or additional taxes on e-commerce, but that’s NOT what SB 2080 was about at all. It was about finding a more effective way of collecting sales tax from vendors with an Illinois nexus.
The question is: does Oberweis just not understand the issue(s) here, or is he being willfully dishonest and misleading?
Your understanding is incorrect here oneman. States are already prohibited from making vendors with no nexus collect sales tax. That was the gist of Quill. The ecommerce provision refers to taxes specifically on internet sales, not to sales tax in general.
The sort of misunderstanding that Oberweis shows is fairly common, but is really inexcusable for a guy in his position.
Ah,
I recall that one now. Obie is right, it was a stealth tax. SB 2080 was the latest rendition of a movement to tax all transactions regardless of location of operation. Rauschenberg, Blago, the Mayor of Rockford and a few others supported earlier versions of it. It was a way of penalizing successful business, perfect for economic development in Illinois.
CDW got wind of it and shut it down. I suppose it is a way of ransoming campaign donations from Illinois very strong Mail Order industry.
JBP
jb -
simply put, you are wrong.
SB 2080 was not about putting taxing on anything. It was about finding a better way of collecting taxes that were already owed under existing law.
And again, there was nothing in the bill that would indicate support of it would be equivalent to opposition to the ITFA, as Obie falsely claims.
Obie is spreading mis-information, plain and simple.
No no,
That was the spin, but the actual reason was to make it easier to collect taxes out of state.
You already are supposed to pay taxes on out of state purchases. However the merchant is not required to collect it. You are supposed to voluntarily report it.
SB 2080 and its predecessors was the plot between about 20 States to let each other know what was being purchased by out of state residents.
Rauschenberger spent about 20 minutes trying to explain to me why my business (mail order) why I should report sales to other States. He was not very convincing.
I could be mistaken on thinking this bill was part of the same scheme, but via a quick read of it, it sounds like the same one.
JBP
jb -
tell you what....why don't you take a minute to do more than a "quick read" of SB 2080, and then show me exactly what parts of it are in conflict with the ITFA. I guarantee that you won’t find anything – which means that Oberweis’s assertion that Lauzen would have voted against the ITFA is utterly baseless, and should be retracted
Post a Comment