Internet Sales Tax Laws

Taxation Without Representation

Tax-hungry states go after out-of-state retailers.

|

Amazon.com wants to make a deal with the state of Texas: no sales tax collection during the next four and a half years in exchange for 5,000 jobs and a $300 million investment to open distribution centers where those employees would work. South Carolina recently accepted a similar, smaller offer from the online retailer.

California this June, meanwhile, effectively closed down Amazon's "Affiliates" program, which pays a commission to websites that link to Amazon in the state, by insisting the bookseller pay sales taxes on any transaction referred from a California-based website. The move followed similar actions in Arkansas and Connecticut.

These are just the most recent skirmishes in a decade-long battle between Amazon and officials in various states over taxing online purchases. Now some in Congress, notably Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), want to give the whip hand to state tax collectors with the so-called Main Street Fairness Act. The bill would allow states to impose taxes on interstate commerce, something usually blocked by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Many policy makers and journalists view the debate over Internet taxes in narrow terms. They believe the fight is about whether or not federal, state, or local legislators should "tax the Internet." Consequently, the war of words has focused on competing bumper-sticker slogans such as "Don't Tax the Net" and "Level the Tax Playing Field." But framing the debate that way understates the complexity—and importance—of the issue.

The no-taxes side largely ignores the fact that the Internet isn't really a tax-free zone. It is true that, thanks to the 1992 Supreme Court decision Quill v. North Dakota, states can collect sales tax on online purchases only if the retailer has a physical presence in that state. If a Virginia resident buys a book from Amazon, which is based in Washington state, he pays no sales tax. But if he buys the same book from store in Virginia, the transaction is taxed. Likewise, Amazon consumers living in Washington have to pay in-state taxes.

Furthermore, many state governments technically oblige their residents to remit a "use" tax on any goods they purchase out of state. A California resident who buys a computer in sales-tax-free Oregon, for instance, is expected to send the Golden State's Board of Equalization a check for an amount effectively equal to 7.25 percent (California's sales tax rate) of the computer's price. But such levies are extremely unpopular and seldom enforced, leaving Internet users with the impression that their online purchases are tax-free.

On the other side, the arguments offered by people who would like to extend the sales tax to interstate Internet purchases are rarely valid. States claim such taxes will help them cover their cumulative $130 billion budget deficits. Yet a 2010 study for NetChoice—a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers—by Jeffrey Eisenach and Robert Litan of the economic consulting firm Empiris LLC found that "total potential uncollected sales tax revenues in 2008 were approximately $3.9 billion, or less than three-tenths of one percent of state and local tax revenues."

To close their budget gaps, states should go to the source of their fiscal problem: overspending. According to a 2010 working paper by Matt Mitchell, an economist at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, from 2000 to 2009 state and local spending grew at nearly twice the average annual rate as the private sector. Since these governments depend entirely on the private sector for their resources, this level of spending growth is not sustainable.

States also argue that since online shoppers already owe the tax though the use tax obligation, retailers need to be pushed to collect what consumers won't otherwise cough up. But a tax that can't be enforced is a bad tax. And the states' inability to force consumers to pay use taxes is hardly a good reason to impose the collection burden on out-of-state retailers. A 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that sales tax compliance costs for small retailers (that is, retailers with less than $1 million in sales) equaled almost 17 cents of every dollar they collected for states. Expanded tax collection obligations could increase that deadweight economic burden and discourage marketplace innovation and new entry.

To the extent that sales taxes pose a real problem of unequal treatment, it's a problem of the states' own making. There are approximately 7,500 U.S. tax jurisdictions, each with different rates, each with different definitions and exemptions, most with a sales tax and a few without. Are marshmallows and granola bars a "food" or a "candy"? If they are labeled "candy," they are taxed in some states; if classified as "food," they are not.

The Supreme Court cited this dizzying complexity when it ruled that retailers should not have to collect a jurisdiction's sales tax unless they have a physical presence in that jurisdiction. But states are hoping they will soon be able to circumvent that decision through a tax simplification scheme called the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Twenty-four states already have signed on to the agreement, which they hope will allow them to force out-of-state retailers to become tax collectors. The scheme would tax retailers who don't consume public services. Some states, such as California, would even have the power to tax consumers who reside in other states, thus infringing on state sovereignty. And as my Mercatus Center colleague Adam Thierer noted in an April article for Forbes, the so-called simplification is a 200-page document that doesn't simplify rates or tax bases in any significant way and leaves thousands of loopholes and complexities in place.

While waiting to see whether Congress will come to their rescue, several states, including Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Illinois, have moved to extend collection mandates through an "affiliate" tax on state-based businesses that refer customers to online companies and then collect a commission. Such taxes are known as an "Amazon tax," since the online retailing giant has been the main target. But their main consequence has been to drive online vendors to cancel those commission arrangements, costing the states jobs and tax revenue. Both Amazon and Overstock.com have cut all ties with their Illinois-based partners.

After exiting several states, Amazon is promising jobs and investment in exchange for a tax exemption in some states where it has a physical presence. Such special pleading is the inevitable result of being targeted by tax collectors who are not satisfied with revenue from businesses within their own jurisdiction. However, if Amazon succeeds the results would be the equivalent of corporate welfare: One company will get special tax treatment unavailable to others. That could create a vicious cycle where only large companies can get a tax-free status in exchange for promises of jobs.

There are better ways to level the playing field. One solution is for states to cut taxes on in-state vendors. Another option is an "origin-based" tax regime, under which states would exercise their right to tax equally all sales inside their borders, regardless of the buyer's residence or the ultimate location of consumption. Under that model, all sales would be "sourced" to the seller's principal place of business and taxed accordingly. This approach is already fairly common. A Washington, D.C., resident who buys a car across the Potomac in Virginia, for instance, is taxed at the origin of sale in Virginia regardless of whether he brings the car back into the District. Each day in America, there are millions of cross-border transactions that are taxed only at the origin of the sale; no questions are asked about where the good will be consumed. We should extend the same principle to cross-border sales involving mail order and the Internet. Such an approach would be good for retailers, good for consumers, and good for federalism.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu), a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes a monthly economics column for reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

80 responses to “Taxation Without Representation

  1. We should be more like Pakistan, where a bare ten percent of the population pay any taxes at all. Without all the flies, of course.

    1. Ah, so you share the WSJ’s agitation against the “lucky duckies” then? Me, I don’t think it’s a great argument.

      1. Shit. Max is back.

  2. What is sales tax for? In many states it goes to local municipality where a store is located. It pays for snow removal, fire & police, parks, road maintenance, general city government. An online store in another location generates none of these costs except a small amount or road wear-and-tear for delivery vehicles. The desire to tax out of state retailers also creates a nightmare for small businesses. If they sell a $10 item to somewhere, they need to somehow have national tax tables for every city/county and send hundreds of checks for tiny amounts of money-that is nuts.

    1. Woah, hold on there, Craig. I thought road wear was covered by the gasoline taxes, which the delivery company presumably pays in the jurisdiction they’re delivering in.

    2. Often the sales tax is layered.
      You could pay an 8% sales tax and have 5% go to the state and 3% to the city.

      1. Yeah, I think here statewide is 6.75%. Munis can add an additional 1% and then abominations like Metro can take 1% as well.

    3. The sales tax goes to pay for more government pensions, guaranteed 5% raises, more unnecessary programs, etc.

    4. In massachusetts it all goes to boston first then “they” redistribute it how ever they feel.

  3. I wonder where Ms. de Rugy gets the idea that taxes on out of state vehicles are “seldom enforced.” In my experience, they are frequently (and easily) enforced at time of vehicle registration (or at time of citation for failing to register your vehicle.)

    1. “I wonder where Ms. de Rugy gets the idea that taxes on out of state vehicles are “seldom enforced.””

      I wonder why you wasted time making up a strawman.
      Yes, goods that require licensing are commonly charged the supposed “use” tax. Most goods are neither.

    2. Here in Maine if you purchase a vehicle in tax-free NH and then register it in Maine, they slap you with the excise tax (which is based on original blue book value, not what was actually paid) and then sales tax on top of that.
      If you purchased it some place that has a sales tax that is less than Maine’s, they charge you the difference.
      Get caught transporting more than a case of beer and/or half-gallon of liquor across the state border and you’re in a heap of shit.
      That’s because you can pay as much as 50% less in NH than Maine for alcohol – all tax.
      When you fill out your income tax statement there’s a spot for you to declare how much stuff you purchased from out of state vendors, so they can tax you for it.

      If you drive a car I’ll tax the street, if you try to sit I’ll tax your seat…

      1. Believe as you wish on the need to tax…BUT taxing alcohol is always WRONG!

        1. Why do you think I make my own beer?

      2. I love New Hampshire.

        1. Don’t they just make up for no sales tax with exorbitant property taxes?

          1. I remember a story a while back, don’t know if it was true or not, where some guy in NH got slapped with a huge property tax bill for his mountain shack because it had a wonderful view.
            Yes, in NH they have a view tax.

            This guy was blind.

            1. It may have been a coincidence. It would seem that a house with a nice view would be worth more, and thus be taxed higher.

          2. Don’t they just make up for no sales tax with exorbitant property taxes?

            As an NH resident, I can tell you that this is absolutely true.

            1. As a NJ resident, I can tell you that you don’t know the meaning of exorbitant when it comes to property taxes. And we get sales and state income taxes, too.

          3. Not all towns do, many but not all after some research far up north seems to have less taxes.

            One good part is the property taxes stay in the town you live in though, unlike commonwealth states that “pool” all the taxes into a general “fund” and redistribute according to “needs”.

  4. Your car tax example is a terrible one as DC has an excise tax of 6% when you go ahead and register your car in DC. That tax still is better than Virginia’s annual car tax.

    1. CT taxes cars as real property, so every year the town hits people with their property tax bill for their car, and then, if they own a house, for property tax as well of course.

      1. MA gives me a yearly bill for my car, but it’s an excise tax. I’ve never understood an excise tax. It makes no sense.

        1. It’s a use tax.
          You pay them to use your property.
          This is because your property is not really yours. Try not paying taxes and see who owns your property.

          1. Exactly. You can’t pay for anything with fiat currency. Only gold and silver coin is legal tender in payment of debt.

  5. I was pissed but not surprised when California, like a crack addict, decided that it needed more taxes to dumpt in its money hole and thus effectively kicked out Amazon. Whenever I see a smug Democratic politician in Sacramento harping about how we need to pay our “fair share” I swear I want to through something at the TV.

    1. To me the word ‘fair’ has become a curse. What is fair?

      To a socialist, ‘fair’ is taking my farm or shop away from me, and then telling me to work in the shop or on the farm, and I keep just enough to not starve to death. The everyone else gets the same amount, which is ‘fair’ to them. Sickos.

      To a Democrat ‘fair’ is you are more successful than the losers we represent, so we will steal it from you and call it sacrifice. How is taking from some one who works hard and giving it someone who does not fair? Assholes.

      For the Republicans I can keep my money, but they want to tell me how to spend it. I just can’t ‘hurt myself.’ You know, taxes on Alcohol etc. But it least they don’t say it is ‘fair’.

  6. I find the political dynamics of this fascinating. The states, of course, can’t control their spending, by and large, so they’re looking for revenues under every rock.

    Some retailers, dependent on national brick-and-mortar sales, don’t like the competitive disadvantage they have with remote retailers that don’t have sales tax nexus in many states. So they support taxing remote retailers.

    The remote retailers themselves, naturally enough, oppose being hit up for sales taxes, because it is a competitive advantage for them to sell product sans sales taxes, compliance is a bitch, adding the tax where there was none could mean lost customers, and, more esoterically, there’s a good argument that using affiliates to create nexus is unconstitutional.

    Finally, there are the consumers. None of them want to pay sales taxes on anything, so they’re not exactly thrilled with states rushing to try to force remote retailers to collect sales taxes. While many remote retailers have simply ended their affiliate programs in states with affiliate nexus laws, if this becomes federalized or a national trend, those consumers will start actually finding their end prices on on-line and catalog goods going up. I note parenthetically that these consumers are also voters, for the most part.

    1. Even more to your point regarding the politics of this thing is the very term “Main Street Fairness Act” — a deliberate characterization intended to evoke nostalgia for the quaint Mom & Pop stores of yore. Yet it is the big box retailers (through their mouthpiece the California Retailers Association) who pushed the hardest for this and are its staunchest defenders. Best Buy and Target are hardly friends of Main St.

      Then there’s the usual cast of characters on the left who never met a tax they couldn’t love, even a broad-based regressive tax such as Sales and Use. Worst of all the big boxes behind this is the uber-evil Wal-Mart, always a target of progressive ire. Yet now they are willing to climb into bed with Wal-Mart in the name of sticking it to Amazon along with the bled-dry citizens of CA.

      As Veronique pointed out, ultimately the amount of revenue that could be squeezed from this stone pales in comparison to the overall budgets (and their deficits). The costs of collection, enforcement, and defending this tactic in court my well leave CA even more in the red.

      1. Yet it is the big box retailers (through their mouthpiece the California Retailers Association) who pushed the hardest for this and are its staunchest defenders. Best Buy and Target are hardly friends of Main St.

        Another important point to remember is that Best Buy and Target also have huge online retail businesses (although Target is currently costing themselves tens of millions with a horrible new design). Because they exist in (almost) every state with a physical presence, their customers are charged sales tax even when shopping online, whereas Amazon customers are not. That is why a “point of origin” policy wouldn’t end this issue: If I order from my house in Kansas to have a product shipped from Ohio for pickup at a store in Nebraska, where does it originate?

        1. Good point, I had forgotten about their on-line presences. I’d be curious to know what percentage of their overall sales happen on-line Vs. in the store though. BB, Target, and W-M all charge shipping as well as tax so unless an item is priced lower than in the store, you’ll end up paying more on-line. Amazon has free shipping on most anything they sell themselves over $25 and everything is “free” if buy into their $79/yr. Prime club. About the only advantage I can see to the others is NOT having to deal with the crowds or their surly, clueless, and disinterested employees.

          “…If I order from my house in Kansas to have a product shipped from Ohio for pickup at a store in Nebraska…”

          In a progressive utopia, all three would be entitled to a bite at the apple. Commerce would then decline and more “stimulus” would be required to compensate.

    2. > Finally, there are the consumers.
      > None of them want to pay sales
      > taxes on anything

      I’m sure there are are some who don’t mind paying sales taxes. It helps the city, the state, or so they say. Some government employees wouldn’t mind paying an extra $300 in sales tax every year, because they know other people would pay this too, and thus the government employee’s salary would increase by $2000. Thus they get a return on investment. Some people may just be more self-less. Strange but true, these people exist!

      In a way I think it is better for me to pay sales taxes. But only if it can lower my income taxes. Texas has no income tax, but high property and sales tax. California has low property tax due to prop 13, but income taxes must be raised to make up the difference.

  7. A slight correction- these states aren’t just taxing affiliate transactions, they’re saying that all transactions, affiliate referred or not, should be taxed if Amazon has any in state affiliates at all. That the affiliates count as an in state presence.

    1. It would be one thing if they just had to pay tax on the marginal affiliate links, they might not drop the program then. But they’re having to pay taxes on the vast majority of transactions because of these few affiliates. It’s a major point.

      1. It’s the major point, but it’s also ridiculous and almost certainly unconstitutional. If they were limiting this to incremental sales directly generated by in-state affiliates, they’d have a good argument. But that would mean far, far less money.

  8. Wouldn’t an “origin based” tax system just cause business relocation? Thus perpetuating the problem of states looking for ways to tax online transactions.

    1. Montana needs the jobs, I guess. Any other state not have a sales tax?

      1. OR, AK, NH, MD

        1. Maryland has 6%, just added 9% on alcohol. DE has no sales tax. They may become home to online stores just as they are home to many corporations because of friendly laws.

          1. My bad. I always get those two mixed up.

      2. I’m simply asking whether an origin based system would solve anything…

        1. The rationale by the tax collector is that your state has a sales tax, and that tax applies everything you purchase to use in your state.
          If you purchase it in the state then the vendor collects the tax.
          But what if you purchase it in, say Oregon, but use it in your home state that has a sales tax?
          In their mind you owe them money.
          You are using something without paying them for the privilege.

      3. Unemployment rate here in MT is well below the national average.

        http://www.google.com/publicda…..l=en&dl=en

  9. Well you know what I always say: ” If it ain’t Barrack don’t fix it.”

  10. Congress has no authority to implement “Main Street Fairness Act.” Here is why:

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2…..regulated/

  11. “because that’s where the money is.”

    Ignore all the justifications and hair splitting – they just want the money.

  12. Not a bad article, but you left out a ton of detail regarding use taxes. For one thing, it also applies to physical purchases from out-of-state retailers, even if you were charged sales tax at the point of purchase. In other words, if you bought a sculpture on a trip to Santa Fe and paid NM taxes on it, CA still expects you to pay a 7.5% use tax on it.

    For another thing, in California, one “complies” with them on their personal income tax form: that is, you have to compile all your receipts for out-of-state purchases for the entire year and include the use tax payment as part of your tax return. This is basically impossible to enforce, and almost no one in CA puts up with the hassle.

    Unfortunately, the Board of Equalization (yes, the CA agency in charge of tax collection sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged) is starting to get very aggressive and Orwellian about collecting these taxes.

    1. To clarify: CA expects you to pay use taxes on “durable” goods physically purchased out of state. The sculpture from NM would count, as would a pair of ski goggles you bought on a trip to Colorado. But you wouldn’t owe use taxes on, e.g., meals you ate on either trip.

      1. Haha!. CA doesn’t tax your meals eaten out of state. So if you cross the border the Nevada, eat a good meal, then return to South Lake Tahoe and go to the toilet, you don’t pay anything. Yet the burden of disposing of the waste falls upon CA pipelines. This is totally unfair!! Therefore CA should be able to tax you on food consumed out of state if you defecate that food in CA.

        1. Actually it’s the “use” tax that taxes you on out of state purchases. So as long as you consumed it out of state you should be fine.

          And since your toilet is already installed, then your “use” of the toilet should already be covered.

          Nice try though 🙂

          1. > And since your toilet is already
            > installed, then your “use” of the
            > toilet should already be covered.

            Installation is one thing, paying for ongoing use is another. That’s the use/sales tax I’m talking about here.

            Anyway, you might have missed that my post was satire.

            1. Oh no, I got it. I decided to be a smart ass and respond anyway,

    2. Actually, I think one very big detail was left out. If a resident of Georgia buys something online from a retailer in Texas, is the transaction taking place in Georgia or in Texas? If you think that is a difficult question to answer, ask yourself (or your friendly neighborhood government) this: If a gambler in Georgia places a bet with a gambling site in Costa Rica, is the gambling taking place in Georgia or in Costa Rica? The government has already answered that question.

    3. Actually, I think one very big detail was left out. If a resident of Georgia buys something online from a retailer in Texas, is the transaction taking place in Georgia or in Texas? If you think that is a difficult question to answer, ask yourself (or your friendly neighborhood government) this: If a gambler in Georgia places a bet with a gambling site in Costa Rica, is the gambling taking place in Georgia or in Costa Rica? The government has already answered that question.

  13. Veronique de Rugy seems to be confused. In California, and presumably other states, it’s the retailer who is under legal obligation to pay sales tax and not the customer.

    It’s customary by retailers to get customers to pay any sales tax levied against those retailers.

    By law, again in California, retailers must itemize sales receipts to show what customers paid for merchandise and what customers accepted to pay as the retailers’ legally owed sales tax.

    1. Actually you’re incorrect. The customer is REQUIRED to pay sales or use tax if the retailar did not collect it (say from an out of state transaction).

      As a CPA, I just got another letter in the mail from the Department of Equalizaton reminding me of that fact.

      1. Yes, but no one does unless the item is big enough to cause a tax collector to go after it.

  14. Leaving aside the issue of whether governments should cut spending (they should).

    I don’t see why out of state vendors should get a competitve advantage over in state vendors.

    I’m perfectly ok with leveling the playing field.

    1. To level the playing field then NO sales tax for ANY thing in every state then.

      Problem solved.

    2. Leaving aside the issue of whether out of state vendors should get a competitive advantage over in state vendors (it doesn’t matter).

      I don’t why people can’t read the article… “There are approximately 7,500 U.S. tax jurisdictions, each with different rates, each with different definitions and exemptions, most with a sales tax and a few without. Are marshmallows and granola bars a ‘food’ or a ‘candy’? If they are labeled ‘candy,’ they are taxed in some states; if classified as ‘food,’ they are not.” This is a nigh impossible burden that out of state retailers shouldn’t have to deal with.

      1. I really don’t see why that should be hard. Enter your zip code, and let software compute the tax.

        It would still be way simpler than software that does income taxes.

        Note, I’m not arguing that sales tax should be simplified, just that it’s not a hurtle that can’t be solved.

        1. “I really don’t see why that should be hard. Enter your zip code, and let software compute the tax.”
          And the updated software would be available for free, including a tech to come out and make sure it was operating properly?
          My CPA at the time of the Reagan ‘tax reform’ assured me it was a CPA retirement program. I’m sure you’re more than happy to bill for the time to make sure all those taxes are accounted properly.

        2. Your Zip Code is NOT enough information to tell sales tax.

          Taxing jurisdictions do not even remotely constrain themselves to zip code boundaries.

          I used to work for a Sales and Use Tax compliance company.
          We would regularly get letters from taxing bodies(all across the country) telling us that the boundaries of the Podunk Municipal Donut and Pizza Tax District changed and now includes the South Side of Main Street.
          I’m guessing we would get these letters because the Donut and Pizza Shops changed locations from the north side of the street to the south side of the street.

          In Texas, there were even a few SUT districts that were confined to a specific shopping centers.

          And thats also to say nothing of the fact that as Veronique mentioned, different items are taxed differently. Is a granola bar a food or candy?

          1. As far as what it would cost for such software….lets just say that such software actually does exist, but it is ridiculously expensive.

            Thankfully I didn’t have to deal with that. My job was not related to collection, but rather to remittance.

            Remittance is a whole entire other can of worms for interstate sales tax.

            Imagine a small business that has ~10,000 customers a month from all across the country. Big towns, small towns, simple tax states, complex tax states.

            With a sample that size you could conceivably find yourself having to send out up to 300 tax returns each month…most for less than $5 in tax.

  15. The origin tax will still create a situation where there’s a race to the bottom in terms of who can offer Amazon the lowest taxes, much like how credit card companies base themselves out of states with no usury laws.

    A fairer solution would be to only require retailers to collect sales tax if that tax can fit a certain limit interstate criteria. Localities couldn’t dream up whatever tax codes they want, but they could (based on zip code, perhaps) impose broad interstate sales taxes. This would have the added bonus of eliminating government overreach in sin taxes, which would be too complicated to include in the system.

    1. A race to offer Amazon the lowest taxes sounds like a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.

      Nobody forces anyone to get a credit card from out of state.

  16. Localities couldn’t dream up whatever tax codes they want, but they could (based on zip code, perhaps) impose broad interstate sales taxes. This would have the added bonus of eliminating government overreach in sin taxes, which would be too complicated to include in the system.

  17. My brother’s home town had a brilliant idea, raise the sales tax to cover a projected budget shortfall. The result, people voted with their feet and started making more purchases in adjoining towns with a lower sales tax.
    The fix, raise the sales tax even more, since revenues were much less than projected.
    There should be an IQ test to hold a public position.

  18. Trying to collect sales taxes from out of state “e-tailers” is counterproductive in at least two ways.
    Some states will balk at being the tax collector for other states unless their costs are recovered 100% plus they will demand a share of the net revenue, [if there is any] and two companies with instate entities will close up and leave the state that wants to tax their internet transactions putting MORE PEOPLE OUT OF A JOB. I for one think that it is a little overboard for California to tell Idaho to send them tax $. If I was in Idaho I would collect the sales tax for Idaho and tell California or any other states demanding sales tax to TAKE A HIKE!

  19. Trying to collect sales taxes from out of state “e-tailers” is counterproductive in at least two ways.
    Some states will balk at being the tax collector for other states unless their costs are recovered 100% plus they will demand a share of the net revenue, [if there is any] and two companies with instate entities will close up and leave the state that wants to tax their internet transactions putting MORE PEOPLE OUT OF A JOB. I for one think that it is a little overboard for California to tell Idaho to send them tax $. If I was in Idaho I would collect the sales tax for Idaho and tell California or any other states demanding sales tax to TAKE A HIKE!

  20. e, something usually blocked by the Commerce Clause of

  21. collectors with the so-called Main Street Fairness Act. The bill would

  22. Thanks for post. s?ve, mantolama fiyatlar?, ?s? yal?t?m?
    | mantolama | | s?ve modelleri |

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.