re: #157 Simply Sarah

While I agree that there are certainly some legal questions involved here, I’m also rather sympathetic to California in this instance and I think federal regulations around this need to be modified to fit with modern realities. I, personally, don’t think it makes much sense at all for a product that would be taxed by the vendor if purchased locally to not be taxed by the vendor if purchased on the Internet (Unless there is a presence involved but even that often isn’t the case). This is becoming an increasingly large drain on states’ finances and I don’t think it can be ignored. Doing so will just mean more cuts to services and higher taxes and fees in other areas.

Actually, Quill said it was up to Congress to decide how state sales taxes were to apply as it was a clear purpose of the Commerce clause. Quill was in 1987. The fact we’re still fighting this is indicative of how complex the issue is when really investigated.

It’s not easy. As one point requiring an out-of-state entity to maintain a tax registry is MORE burdensome, and thus interferes with interstate trade. (The reason for the commerce clause in the first place.)