Blog, US

Problems with Marketplace Fairness Act Still Need to be Addressed

BY CCIA Staff
March 28, 2013

Last Friday, during the Vote-O-Rama on the Senate’s FY 2014 Budget Resolution, the Senate voted to approve an amendment offered by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) regarding the online sales tax issue. Sen. Durbin announced “75 U.S. Senators showed their support for the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013,” and characterized the amendment as “an amendment summarizing the bill.” Many news reports seemed to accept this portrayal implicitly, some even stating that the amendment “mirrors” the Marketplace Fairness Act, or that it was a “vote to include Marketplace Fairness.” However, as we stated earlier this week, the Durbin amendment does not a Marketplace Fairness Act make.

The amendment’s actual wording says that it is for “allowing States to enforce State and local use taxes already owed under State law on remote sales by the amounts provided in such legislation.” Is this an accurate summary of the Marketplace Fairness Act? Not unless “summarizing” means getting to leave out all of the details that make the bill so controversial in the first place. Does it “mirror” the bill? Not unless you use a mirror so blurry you are unable to make out the most basic features.

CCIA has previously listed the many problems with the Marketplace Fairness Act: the inaccurate commandeering of terms such as “fairness” and “level playing field” when the result would be unfairly greater collection burdens for online retailers; the mischaracterization of the physical presence standard as a “loophole”; the misuse of “states’ rights” to justify actions that would actually subordinate the interests and sovereignty of some states to that of others. The impassioned speeches given by opponents of the bill on the Senate floor signify that these issues remain controversial and still need to be deliberated by the world’s greatest deliberative body. Rather than disingenuously attempting to conflate support for a vague concept of use tax enforcement with support for their own bill, proponents need to justify the severing of physical presence from taxation, which the Finance Committee Chairman called “revolutionary”, and the need to draft online retailers into duty as nationwide tax collectors. “We want the revenue and it’s convenient,” is not an acceptable answer and this bill will not be ready until they come up with one that is.

Related Articles

New EU Distribution Rules Allow Discrimination Against Online Commerce

Jul 9, 2021

Brussels, BELGIUM — The European Commission has published its draft revisions to distribution rules known as the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and the Vertical Guidelines (“VBER”). The VBER covers so-called vertical agreements between suppliers and their retailers or distributors. The updated rules replace the current rules on June 1, 2022. Digital distribution models have been…

CCIA Tech Industry Delegation Meets Incoming German EU Presidency, Shares Recommendations

Mar 9, 2020

Berlin, Germany — The Computer & Communications Industry Association is leading a delegation of tech companies to meet with German politicians and senior officials ahead of Germany taking over the Presidency of the Council of the EU on July 1. CCIA Europe will also present its EU tech policy recommendations published today.   Germany takes…

DHS Issues Report On Counterfeit Products

Jan 24, 2020

Washington — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has issued its report to the White House regarding proposed action on addressing counterfeits and pirated goods in online marketplaces. This follows a Presidential Memorandum from last April on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods”, which tasked Commerce and DHS to prepare a report with a…