Enzi's 'Marketplace Fairness Act' a Trojan horse

2013-04-10T13:32:00Z Enzi's 'Marketplace Fairness Act' a Trojan horseBRUCE EDWARD WALKER Wyoming Liberty Group Casper Star-Tribune Online

Two admonitions hold true throughout history. The first is “Beware Greeks bearing gifts.” The other is any piece of legislation containing the word “fairness” in its title.

Such is the case with the so-called “Marketplace Fairness Act,” which is co-sponsored by Wyoming Sen. Michael Enzi. Under the guise of “fairness,” this Trojan horse contains a multitude of harms to businesses, consumers and the fundamental right to avoid taxation without representation.

On its surface the MFA sounds reasonable enough: Force Internet retailers to collect a state sales tax for each transaction. After all, traditional brick-and-mortar sales are required to do so in the states and municipalities where they are located.

Digital retailers, the reasoning goes, have an unfair advantage over their physical counterparts. Perhaps more compelling for bureaucrats is the real beast in the belly that has nothing whatsoever to do with “fairness” and, conversely, everything to do with the loss of state revenues on uncollected taxes from Internet sales.

If passed, the MFA will increase taxes as “multiple jurisdictions lay claim to the same transaction and demand payment,” according to Bartlett Cleland, policy counsel, The Institute for Policy Innovation, a Texas-based free-market think tank. The proposal “does away with any requirement that a business have a physical connection in a jurisdiction before it can be required to levy taxes on its sales,” he added, referring to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court determination in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that requires a company maintain a physical presence —or “nexus” — in a state before it is held responsible for collecting that state’s sales tax.

Unlike Internet retailers, traditional brick-and-mortar stores actually receive state and municipal services and infrastructure in return for the sales taxes they collect from consumers. Sales taxes derived from Internet sales return bupkis to retailers lacking a state nexus. How is this fair?

“Passage of this measure would be another step on the road toward government encroachment into everything we do, as well as a means for states to turn retailers into tax collectors, regardless of where the retailers are located,” asserted Steve Stanek, research fellow, Budget and Tax Policy at the free-market The Heartland Institute.

“Several states don’t even have sales taxes, but online retailers in their borders would have to start collecting sales tax for all the other states,” Stanek added.

The burden of collecting taxes for each of the more than 7,000 U.S. tax jurisdictions would place egregious costs on Internet retailers who, in turn, would be forced to pass those additional expenses on to their respective customers. According to Seth Cooper, Free State Foundation research fellow, MFA “would give state taxing authorities an easier path to saddle out-of-state retailers with sales tax collection burdens.”

Cooper added: “The Marketplace Fairness Act would enable states to assert their own respective definitions of what goods and services sold by online remote retailers are taxable through state legislation, state tax administrative regulations, and state court rulings,” Cooper said. “Myriad local governments would be able to apply their own rates and idiosyncratic rules, as well.”

Cooper concluded: “Subjecting remote online retailers to potentially thousands of different tax rules creates complex and costly compliance burdens. And making it easier for state and local governments to tax out-of-state businesses with no physical presence in a state encourages revenue-hungry states to project their taxing powers beyond their boundaries in dubious ways. If adopted by Congress, the approach taken by The Marketplace Fairness Act could pose a real drag on interstate e-commerce.”

Additionally, traditional brick-and-mortar retailers have found the Internet a godsend for consumers unwilling or unable to visit their stores. For those customers who require immediate gratification for products they desire, the Internet also serves as a terrific marketing tool for retailers maintaining a physical presence in close proximity.

The Internet has grown to one-sixth of the U.S. economy during the past two decades. Since then, legislators and bureaucrats have grasped at every idea imaginable to stifle its growth by impeding the profitability of companies employing innovative ideas to service their customers by offering them real-world choices for their purchases.

The MFA is one such ploy wheeled in by politicos with the illusion of “fairness” when it’s nothing more than a bill seeking enhanced revenues for the government trough. It may appeal to brick-and-mortar special interests seeking government enforcement to guarantee competitiveness against technological innovations, but it would succeed only in hurting Internet retailers and their customers.

The Wyoming Liberty Group is a 401(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. The Group’s mission is to prepare citizens for informed, active and confident involvement in local and state government and to provide a venue for understanding public issues in light of constitutional principles and government accountability.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. supercalifragilistic
    Report Abuse
    supercalifragilistic - April 11, 2013 2:10 pm
    I think Sen Enzi is beginning to concern many Wyomingites with his "tax increase talks" lately. The latest would be the internet and collecting taxes for Government to spend.
  2. TaxCloud
    Report Abuse
    TaxCloud - April 11, 2013 1:56 pm
    I find the authors concerns about 'any piece of legislation containing the word “fairness” in its title' both funny and frightening.

    So the author must also be concerned about the other 49 bills now pending before congress with the word "fairness" in the title, including:
    - Small Supplier Fairness in Bidding Competition Act of 2013
    - Housing Fairness Act of 2013
    - Fairness in Firearm Testing Act
    - GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013
    - Paycheck Fairness Act
    - Corporate Tax Fairness Act
    - Fairness for Military Homeowners Act of 2013
    - Student Loan Fairness Act

    Should those also be tossed and ignored because they contain the word fairness in their title? According to the author's logic, yes.

    I would suggest people use some other metric to evaluate the merits of a bill, rather than just its title. I would even hope that anyone willing to send an OpEd piece into a newspaper would be responsible enough to actually read the proposed bill (http://marketplacefairness.org) before penning such a dismissive piece.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editors@trib.com, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Activate subscription button gif

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers