One of their biggest objections to the idea of collecting sales taxes on out-of-state shipments is the dizzying complexity of state laws.Take candy, which would seem to be a straightforward item to tax. It isn't. During a 2003 discussion of tax policy, a representative of Indiana, James Turner, noted that a proposed definition of candy would have taxed the Milky Way Midnight candy bar but not the original Milky Way bar.
But further investigation showed that Turner's counter-proposal would have treated "certain flavors of Pop Tarts" and Cookies and Twix Crunchy Cookie Bars as candy--but not Cookies and Snickers Crunchy Cookie Bars. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies would be candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites would be classified as food.
And that's not to mention other bizarre activities on the part of legislatures such as sales tax holidays, means of payment rules, sales tax caps, and gross receipts taxes.
How are online retailers supposed to keep up with a situation such as when a state declares in May of 2009 that generators less than $500 are to be sold tax-free from June 1st to June 4th in both 2009 and 2010?
The article mentions the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement idea (you can find it here) as if it were some sort of solution; well, here's section 304 from that agreement:
Section 304: NOTICE FOR STATE TAX CHANGES A. Each member state shall lessen the difficulties faced by sellers when there is a change in a state sales or use tax rate or base by making a reasonable effort to do all of the following: 1. Provide sellers with as much advance notice as practicable of a rate change. 2. Limit the effective date of a rate change to the first day of a calendar quarter. 3. Notify sellers of legislative changes in the tax base and amendments to sales and use tax rules and regulations. B. Failure of a seller to receive notice or failure of a member state to provide notice or limit the effective date of a rate change shall not relieve the seller of its obligation to collect sales or use taxes for that member state. C. Each member state failing to provide for at least thirty days between the enactment of the statute providing for a rate change and the effective date of such rate change shall relieve the seller of liability for failing to collect tax at the new rate if: 1. the seller collected tax at the immediately preceding effective rate; and 2. the sellers failure to collect at the newly effective rate does not extend beyond thirty days after the date of enactment of the new rate. D. Notwithstanding subsection C, if the member state establishes the seller fraudulently failed to collect at the new rate or solicits purchasers based on the immediately preceding effective rate this relief does not apply. E. Member states may provide for relief of liability for failing to collect tax as a result of a tax change beyond the liability relief required by subsection C.
Note 304(B): "Failure of a seller to receive notice or failure of a member state to provide notice or limit the effective date of a rate change shall not relieve the seller of its obligation to collect sales or use taxes for that member state." Ignorance of any of the tax jurisdictions change of laws (even temporary changes) is no excuse.
Wait for Congress to unleash fees on Internet access ...look at all the taxes and fees added on your phone bill...mine amount to almost 40% of the basic phone access cost ...including a federal excise tax first imposed to fund the Spanish American War. I see the same thing coming to your ISP fees.