►
From YouTube: Summit Webinar | The Future of Online Sales Tax
Description
In June, the Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Wayfair that states can require remote businesses to collect and remit sales taxes on residents’ transactions. While a tremendous victory for states and Main Street USA, states have a lot of work ahead to ensure that their newfound authority is implemented correctly and fairly. Explore what happened and states’ next steps.
A
We
have
a
either
way
Steven
paddle
up
here
today
to
my
left
is
Jason
Brewer
with
the
retail
industry
leaders
Association
to
his
leftist
director,
Gannon
noble
of
the
Wyoming
Department
of
Revenue
and
to
his
left
is
Gregory
Matson,
who
is
the
executive
director
of
the
multi-state
tax
commission
will
explain
what
those
know
more
about
those
two
organizations
here
in
a
second,
but
so
in
general.
Why
are
we
here
well
here
because
in
the.
A
Session
this
afternoon,
because
we'd
love
to
hear
you
talk
about
taxes
now,
the
because
of
the
growth
in
that
the
rapid
growth
of
online
commerce
has
fundamentally
changed
the
way
that
we
shop
and
the
way
that
we
work
in
quite
frankly,
I
was
socialized
for
the
last
six
years.
Year-Over-Year
ecommerce
is
growing
15%
and
depending
how
you
measure
it.
It's
either
a
9%
or
11%
of
all
retail
sales
and
I
believe
the
fastest
growing
form
of
Commerce
is
actually
mobile,
commerce,
which
is
growing
50%
year-over-year.
A
So
now
we're
kidding
the
wait
till
we
get
home
on
a
computer.
We
have
to
buy
it
right
now
where
we
are,
and
in
the
put
that
in
perspective
and
where
this
goes
back
to
is
the
1990
Nick
to
cruel
decision,
which
said
that
a
business
had
to
be
physically
present
in
a
state
in
order
for
that
state
to
be
able
to
acquire
that
business
to
collect
to
remit
that
state
sales
tax
well
put
that
in
Reverse
Epona
perspective,
the
first
text
message
ever
set
was
set
in
1992
in
Finland.
A
You
know
now:
I,
can
you
know
stream
live
TV
in
my
office
when
I'm
on
a
conference
call-
and
you
know
it
on
my
phone
I
mean
and
in
1994
was
it
Intel,
but
that
was
the
first
year
the
first
secured
internet
retail
transaction
occurred
and
it
wasn't
until
July
of
1995
that
Jeff
Bezos
actually
set
up
sold
a
book
out
of
his
garage.
That
was
company
sells
out
a
few
more
things,
and
you
know
I,
that's
really
where
we
are
and
try
to
address
this
issue,
which
is
also
an
issue
of
fairness
for
retail.
A
It's
also
an
issue
of
available
states
to
exercise
and
be
able
to
enforce
the
tax
laws
that
there's
issues
you
know
go
to
them.
For
that
being
said,
so
I'm
gonna
kick
over
here
to
a
Greg
Mann
to
actually
to
start
out
about
the
multi-state
tax
Commission,
just
to
give
a
little
overview
of
the
perspective
that
you're
gonna
be
coming
from
here
today.
All.
B
For
that
reason,
the
Commission
has
been
a
voice
for
preserving
the
authority
of
states
to
determine
their
own
tax
policy
within
the
limits
of
the
US
Constitution
for
51
years
now.
Our
mission
is
to
achieve
fairness
by
promoting
compliance
and
consistent
tax
policy
and
practice
and
to
preserve
the
sovereignty
of
state
and
local
governments
over
their
tax
systems.
B
B
The
states
to
do
anything
our
members,
we
are
an
advisory.
In
that
sense,
we
we
serve
the
states
as
an
adjunct
to
their
own
departments
of
revenue.
For
purposes
of
this
discussion,
max
I,
just
I'm,
going
to
mention
one
of
the
many
things
that
we're
involved
with.
We
have
a
uniformity
committee
in
which
all
states
that
meet
with
us
can
participate
and
the
uniformity
committee
studies
and
proposes
uniform
tax
statutes
and
regulations.
D
B
Business
or
sales
tax,
Nessa
Nexus
statute,
with
the
participation
of
a
number
of
states,
our
states
are
both
streamline
states
and
non
streamline
states,
and
we
work
closely
with
other
state
tax
organizations
as
well
as
NCSL
and
GA
practitioners
and
tax
payers,
and
that
just
kind
of
gives
you
the
perspective.
I.
C
A
E
C
E
There
were
a
number
of
things
that
are
even
mentioned
in
the
Wayfarer
decision,
one
of
them
being
state-level
administration
of
the
tax,
developing
common
tax
bases
between
state
and
local
government,
simplification
of
tax
rates,
where
possible,
and
some
some
guidelines
on
how
and
when
to
actually
allow
rates
to
change.
One
thing
that
surprised
me
early
on
is
to
to
recognize
just
put
kind
of
a
burden
we
place
on
businesses
when
we,
when
we
change
our
tax
rate
in
the
state
of
Wyoming.
E
F
E
Rate
would
change
one
of
the
simplification
measures
of
the
streamlined
sales
tax
was
to
say
that
there
are
four
times
during
a
year
and
you
can
actually
change
a
tax
rate
and
it's
the
beginning
of
each
and
every
calendar.
Quarter.
I
said
that
doesn't
sound
all
that,
like
all
that
big
of
a
deal,
but
when
you
consider
that
you
almost
have
to
look
in
in
44
different
states
365
days
a
year
to
find
out
when
the
tax
rate
changes,
it
becomes
a
pretty
big
deal,
and
so
it
became
a
very
major
simplification.
E
E
At
one
point,
there
were
a
number
of
congressmen
that
tried
to
and
senators
that
actually
tried
to
develop
legislation
that
would
kind
of
mirror
some
of
the
some
of
the
tenets
of
a
streamline
sales
tax
itself.
The
Marketplace
Fairness
Act
was
passed
in
2013
in
the
Senate.
It
has
languished
in
on
the
house
side
for
a
number
of
years.
Some
of
there
was
an
attempt
to
try
to
take
and
tweak
the
marketplace.
E
Burneth
Fairness
Act,
with
the
promote
transaction
parity
Act,
had
a
few
differences,
but
essentially
the
same
type
of
a
bill,
and
we
finally
had
one
state
that
basically
said
enough
is
enough.
We
need
to
basically
get
this
in
front
of
the
court
because
it's
not
going
to
happen
in
Congress
and
kudos
to
South
Dakota
for
taking
that
taking
that
lead
it
is,
it
is
resulted
in
the
waiver
decision
and
I
guess.
The
next
step
is
to
try
to
figure
out
what
do
we
do
next.
Thank.
G
G
When
we
encountered
a
roadblock
our
you
know,
we
work
together
to
find
a
way
around
it
and
go
into
a
new
direction,
and
it
has
been
a
terrific
partnership,
we're
certainly
sympathetic
to
the
plight
of
state
and
local
governments
in
this
fight,
because
you're
responsible
for
paying
for
police
and
fire
and
roads
and
schools,
and
that
was
something
that
obviously
was
something
we
were
sympathetic
towards
and
supported,
but
for
the
retail
community.
This
has
always
been
about
free
markets
and
the
government
thumb
that
was
essentially
on
the
scale
when
it
said
to
an
online
company.
G
You
don't
have
to
charge
the
same
sales
tax
that
the
brick-and-mortar
store
has
to
charge.
So
for
us,
for
the
last
two
decades,
it's
been
a
free
market
issue.
We
felt
the
marketplace
has
been
broken
and
we're
very
excited
now
to
have
a
Supreme
Court
decision
that
clears
the
path
for
States
to
to
correct
this
inequity.
G
We
think
it's
a
win-win
for
state
governments,
for
your
local
retailers
and
so
we're
very
excited
to
work
with
you
on
language
that
mirrors
what
Senator
Peters
introduced
in
South
Dakota,
and
what
some
other
states
have
done
on
the
marketplace
side,
to
close
that
that
loophole
to
ensure
that
you
get
the
revenues
that
you
need
with
your
state.
Sales,
tax
and
retailers
have
a
level
playing
field
on
which
to
compete.
So
we
truly
view
it
as
a
win
win
and
I
would
encourage
all
of
you.
G
If
you
haven't
at
this
point
to
reach
out
to
your
local
state
retail
Association.
They
should
have
language
that
they've
worked
with
some
of
the
national
groups
on
and
they're
eager
to
partner
with
you
as
well,
and
to
talk
to
your
colleagues
who
maybe
haven't
been
focused
on
this,
but
we
really
look
forward
to
working
with
you
over
the
next
next
year.
So
to
implement
this
nationwide.
Thank
you
very
much
great.
A
Thanks
so
let's
go
ahead
and
dive
into
how
we
got
to
weigh
fair
and
then
where
we
are
right
now
and
then
how
we
look
ahead.
So
what
did
we
get
here?
Well,
in
1992,
the
Supreme
Court
said:
if
explore
versus
North
Dakota,
an
addition
is
saying
that
you'd
have
physical
presence
in
the
state,
but
it
also
said
Congress
this
really.
You
should
do
this.
You
should
take
care
of
it.
A
It's
your
issue
to
take
care
of
so
you
know,
came
about
and
as
senator
bramble,
I'm,
NC,
forma
and
CSL
president
from
Utah
said
during
the
Judiciary
Committee
hearing
this
past
Tuesday
we
could
go
today.
It
is
Tuesday
right.
It's
been
a
long
week.
You
know
Congress
had
the
opportunity
act
in
26
years,
but
simply
didn't
you
know.
This
goes
back
to
the
60s.
It's
the
coolest
Asian
is
what
led
to
the
streamline
sales
and
use
tax
effort
that
Dan
talked
about
in
2013
the
the
Senate
passed.
A
This
you
know
sixty
nine
to
twenty
seven,
but
for
over
five
and
a
half
years
was
never
even
brought
up
for
hearing
the,
let
alone
a
vote
in
the
house
and
then
the
remote
transactions
parity
Act,
which
was
introduced
in
the
house,
which
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
House
Judiciary
Committee,
was
also
never
brought
up
for
a
vote,
so
it
was
rather
frustrating
for
States
is,
which
is
why
they
they
got
tired
of
waiting
and
and
I
kind
of
like
to
start
here.
I
could
start
a
little
different
spy.
A
I
could
start
2010
with
Colorado,
because
I
think
this
is
a
you
know.
We'd
caught
two
thousand
Tama
Colorado
said
what
we
know.
We
can't
force
companies
about
physical
presence
in
here
to
collect
our
taxes,
but
they
would
get
them
to
report
the
taxes
that
are
owed
and
what
they
said
was,
if
you're
not
collecting
and
remitting
into
our
state.
A
So
the
law
they've
essentially
found
that
these
reporting
requirements
or
constitutional
in
other
states
have
followed
them
since,
but
perhaps,
most
importantly,
was
a
concurring
opinion
that
came
down
by
Justice
Kennedy,
who
wrote
about
the
nav
bro
that
it
was
a
cuase.
It
was
a
case
questionable
about
goal.
Rather,
it
was
a
case
questionable
when
decided
quill
now
harm
states
to
agree
far
greater
than
could
have
been
anticipated
earlier.
A
This
was
like
okay.
Well,
we
need
to
do
this.
He
agrees
with.
We
need
to
bring
the
right
case
to
do
it
and
States
heard
that
it
actually
and
Senator
Peters.
Who
is
what
this
I'll
get
to
for
more
than
her
in
a
second
NC
cell
state
local
taxation
task
force
late
met
later
that
year
in
November,
following
the
the
concurrence
from
Justice
Kennedy,
and
it
was
you
know
like
typically,
this
is
how
things
happen
in
Congress.
A
If
we're
going
to
do
it,
we
needed
to
have
you
know,
legislation
to
challenge
quo,
we
need
to
have
a
bill
ready,
January,
run
and
be
ready
to
rock
and
roll.
Because
committee
hearing
stuck
the
second
week
of
January,
she
was
saying
I'm
ready
to
do
this
and
she
yeah
she
was
not
lying
and
we'll
get
that
second,
so
January
we
met
in
in
Salt
Lake
City
as
part
was
the
NCSL
Executive
Committee
and
spent
the
NCSL
state.
A
Local
taxation
task
force
met,
and
we
discussed
this
for
over
half
the
meeting
on
what
states
could
do,
because
that
period
of
frustration
matter
and
that
than
anything
from
expanding
Nexus
to
be
able
to
collect
more
taxes,
taxes
constitutionally
or
to
simply
challenge
will
make
states
for
across
the
board
for
obvious
reasons.
But
what
was
resulted
out
of
this?
You
know
effort
and
discussion.
A
Really,
the
the
focal
point
was
in
South
Dakota,
which
I
find
kind
of
ironic,
considering
a
previous
case
was
in
North
Dakota,
so
way
more
decisions
out
of
the
Dakotas
and
what
sounded
something
else
but
Senate
bill
106
says,
and
it's
one
of
the
most
unique
pieces
of
legislation.
I've
ever
read,
I
mean
it
sort,
undred
and
I
know
that
cuz
I
I
have
a
lot
of
fun
in
my
free
time,
but
it.
A
What
it
says
is
is
that
if
you
know
we
don't
care,
if
you're
indifferent
to
physical
presence
in
this
state,
if
you
sell
more
than
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
into
our
state
or
at
two
hundred
or
separate
transactions,
you
have
to
collect
and
remit,
and
that
was
a
very,
very
small
portion
of
the
legislation.
There
was
actually
I
would
say
the
constitute
the
majority
of
it
was
actually
the
findings
which
was
very
unique
he
put
in
there.
This
is
what
we
that
this
is
why
we're
doing
this.
A
This
is
why
we
believe
we're
right
and
also,
if
and
when
are
we
to
be
challenged,
meaning
we
know
we're
gonna,
get
sued,
we're
gonna
direct
the
state's
judiciary
to
take
this
up
and
consider
it
as
fast
as
possible.
So
it
was
meant
to
to
fast-track
the
way
through
I
think
what
he
said.
Well,
in
addition
to
them
directing
the
judiciary
as
expeditious
possible,
which
is
rather
unique.
A
It
says
he
does
not
apply
any
of
the
provisions
retroactively
Lee,
so
senator
heidi
heitkamp
from
north
dakota
was
the
tax
commissioner
in
1992,
when
the
quill
was
decided,
and
she
is
a
strong.
You
know
an
adamant
believer
in
the
fact
that
the
reason
North
Dakota
lost
is
that
during
oral
arguments,
the
North
Dakota
Attorney
actually
said
we
were,
can
apply
this
retro
actively.
So
South
Dakota
said
now.
We're
gonna
put
this
in
here
and
we're
going
to
just
go
ahead
and
get
ready
to
make
sure
that's
not
a
issue
to
begin
with.
A
So
you
know
what
Senator
Peters
are
the
bill.
What
legislation
was
introduced
on
January
27th
in
March?
It
was
signed
into
law
a
few
days
after
that
the
DOR
sent
notices
to
over
200
retailers.
They
believe
had
met
the
bet
of
200
transaction
or
$100,000
thresholds
into
the
state
and
April
28
the
state
file
jet.
This
is
a
expedited
timeline.
Obviously
there
we
also
countersuit
as
well.
March
6,
the
South
Dakota
60
additional
Circuit
ruled
that
the
the
bill
was
unconstitutional.
This
was
not
a
surprise.
A
The
state
went
in
there
and
said
we
agree
with
them
or
wrong.
We
need
to
go
to
the
next
level
and
but
if
the
next
level
in
South
Dakota
is
straight
to
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court,
unlike
most
states,
there's
only
two
levels
in
the
court.
States
states
court
system,
which
is
another
reason
why
it
moved
as
fast
as
it
did
so
it
moved
along
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court
on
September
13.
He
said
the
same
thing
and
it
was
one
of
the
most
friendly.
You
know
you're
wrong.
A
G
Something
really
quite
sure,
I
think
similar
to
the
retroactivity
issue
that
you
mentioned.
This
was
also
pretty
important
to
the
case,
because
in
the
North
Dakota
case,
North
Dakota
had
overruled
a
previous
Supreme
Court
opinion
and
the
Supreme
Court
doesn't
like
that
and
so
going
the
alternative
route
actually
losing
made
a
lot
more
sense
to
approach
the
supreme
court.
Rather
than
snubbing
your
nose
at
a
previous
decision
and
saying
you
guys
must
have
been
wrong
when
you
decided
this
20
years
ago.
So
much
like
retroactivity.
A
Exactly
thank
you,
and
so
on.
October,
2nd,
the
state
petition
to
the
Supreme
Court
and
on
January
12th
of
this
year
the
Supreme
Court
said:
okay,
we'll
take
it
up.
So
in
less
than
two
years
from
when
the
bill
was
introduced,
the
Supreme
Court
had
granted
a
hearing.
That's
pretty
quick,
April
17th.
They
heard
oral
oral
arguments
were
heard
and
which
was
very
interesting.
Some
of
us
were
in
the
room
and
it
was
a
lot
of
things
were
brought
up
between.
A
You
know
a
lot
of
considerations
between
the
dormant
Commerce
Clause,
the
state
sales
tax,
simplification,
retroactivity
technology.
You
know
how
that
it's
advanced,
so
they're
small
sellers
thresholds.
Are
you
protecting
off
they're?
Really
small
guys?
You
know
be
those
kind
of
issues
we'll
pull
it
out,
but
I
just
want
to.
You
know
start
by
asking
the
panel
of
you
know
what
what
we
eat
the.
What
do
you
think
was
really
when
any
of
the
court
was
thinking
and
their
judgment
and
and
what
were
they
really
weighing
here
when
they
went
to
get
aside
this.
E
I'll
give
it
a
shot
anyway,
I
think.
As
Senator
Peters
said
yesterday,
there
was
an
issue
of
fairness
associated
with
this.
The
the
court
had
to
recognize
that
Commerce
has
evolved
significantly
since
the
quill
decision,
and
even
before
that
de
bellas
hess
decision,
and
to
recognize
that
by
by
creating
the
physical
presence
standard
they
act,
they
were
actually
creating
a
discriminatory
tax
themselves
because
it
allowed
a
certain
tax
payer
to
receive
benefit
that
others
could
not
and
I.
Think.
E
That's
very
well
stated
in
the
case
and
I'm
going
to
to
read
an
excerpt
from
the
court
decision.
It
is
a
little
lengthy,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
this
very
issue,
and
this
is
a
on
page
16
of
the
decision.
It
says
in
essence,
respondents
ask
this
court
to
retain
a
rule
that
allows
their
customers
to
escape
payment
of
sales
taxes,
taxes
that
are
essential
to
create
and
secure
the
active
market
they
supply
with
goods
and
services.
An
example
may
suffice:
Wayfair
offers
to
sell
a
vast
selection
of
furnishings.
E
It's
advertising
seeks
to
create
an
image
of
beautiful
peaceful
homes,
but
it
also
says
that
one
of
the
best
things
about
buying
through
wayfarer
is
that
we
do
not
have
to
charge
the
sales
tax.
What
wayfarer
ignores
in
its
subtle
offer
to
assist
in
tax
evasion
is
that
creativeness
is
from
the
court.
Is
that
creating
a
dream
home
assumes
a
solvent
state
and
local
government
state
taxes
fund,
the
police
and
fire
departments
that
protect
the
homes
containing
their
customers,
furniture
and
ensures
goods
are
safely
delivered.
B
You
know
when
you,
when
you
look
at
his
concurring
opinion
in
DMA,
which
essentially
sort
of
lit
the
fuse
for
the
states
to
really
think
about
making
a
run
at
quill
and
really
a
run
at
Bella's
Hess,
which
quill
was
a
run
Abed
and
Bella's
Hess
and
then
you
know,
wit
pair
came
out
and
I
don't
know
I
it
just
seemed
awfully
close.
It
was
a
matter
of
days
right,
Andy
announced
he's
been
retired,
I
had
a
sense
of
like
he's
thinking.
Finally,
I
can
retire
I
fixed
this
problem.
So
that's
that's
my
impression.
A
A
What
was
also
interesting
now
in
the
dissent
which
was
written
by
just
Chief
Justice
Roberts,
he
wrote
that
Bella's
Hess,
which
was
the
preceding
case
in
1967
to
quill
in
1992.
He
wrote
that
that
was
wrongly
decided,
then
that
physical
presence
was
wrong
with
Sims
900,
saying
that
physical
presence
is
not
a
good
measuring
stick
in
determining
whether
or
not
a
business
avail
themselves
to
your
state's
market
and
whether
or
not
it
should
have
to
follow
the
same
rules
as
your
state's
businesses.
So
you
max.
B
I
also
think
that
it
it's
important
to
understand
you
know
max
spent
some
time
going
through
the
history
of
since
Bella's
Hess
and
the
states
struggling
with
this
issue
and
what
Congress
Congress
has
been
considering
this
issue
since
Bella's
Hess,
and
certainly
since
1992
and
so
Chief
Justice
Roberts
in
the
dissent,
also
wrote
what
I
think
is
the
understatement
of
the
year
when
he
said,
Congress
has
in
fact
been
considering
whether
to
alter
the
rule
establish
Bella's
Hess
for
some
time.
So
you
know,
there's
a.
B
A
G
That
thought
that
Sotomayor
and
Kagan
were
perhaps
holding
to
the
principle
of
stare
decisis
for
future
cases
that
they
may
have
been
with
us
on
this,
but
they
wanted
to
sort
of
draw
that
line
in
the
sand
that
the
court
shouldn't
be
in
the
business
of
overturning
precedent
because
they
see
other
cases
coming
down
the
pike,
especially
now
that
they'll
be
a
new
Supreme,
Court
justice
coming
that
will
make
the
court.
In
theory,
more
conservative
are.
A
So
what
the
court
DLC
said,
this
is
more
of
a
comment
back
to
the
what
dr.
noble
was
saying,
but
look.
The
court
said
that
physical
presence
is
no
longer
the
requirement,
but
it
did,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
the
Commerce
Clause
and
that
undue
burdens
on
Interstate
Commerce.
You
know
the
said
that
the
the
jurisprudence
and
legal
case
it
just
went
away.
It's.
A
They
was
applying
traditionally
applied,
Commerce
Clause
2
to
interstate
sales,
but
now
you
just
don't
take
physical
presence
into
account,
so
can
any
state
on
day
one
always
sudden
start
collecting
most
states,
no
I
mean
it
has
to
be
certain
thing
to
do
what
South
Dakota
did.
One
of
this
is,
you
know
it's
a
line
and
yeah
the
safe
harbor
first
fall.
A
So
these
are
examples
of
things
that
South
Dakota
have
done,
which
the
court
looked
at
and
said:
South
Dakota,
you've
done
these
things
and
therefore
we
believe
you've
been
we,
but
you
resolve
the
undue
burdens.
If
this
Supreme
Court
doesn't
create
law,
it
interprets
it.
So
what
I
was
saying
is
that
these
things
that
Kota
you
know
enacted
actually
addressed
the
undue
burdens,
as
outlined
in
quill,
didn't
say
you
have
to
do
them.
It
doesn't
say
you,
you
know
whatever
what.
D
A
What
about
tax
is
going
to
apply
and
just
in
in
accordance
with
this
as
well,
the
the
ncsl
salt,
the
state
local
tax
task
force,
met
a
week
after
this
decision
and
actually
adopted
a
set
of
principles.
For
that
you
know,
states
can
look
at
the
guy
implementation
as
they
go
forward,
which
is
on
the
NCSL
state.
Local
taxation
task
force
webpage.
A
G
Think
you
are
at
all
and
I
would
just
say:
I
think
there
is
I,
wouldn't
say
universal
agreement,
but
in
this
crowd,
probably
near
universal
agreement.
That
Congress
should
not
address
this
at
this
point
that
they
don't
need
to
get
involved.
The
only
thing
that
invites
them
to
get
involved,
our
state's
doing
bad
things,
and
so
following
those
sort
of
guideposts,
no
retroactivity,
some
sort
of
small
business
exemption,
simplification,
etc.
Those
are
the
things
that
ensure
Congress
does
not
come
back
and
meddle
in
this
again.
E
All
right,
I
think
we
have
a
an
opportunity
as
states
here,
but
I
think
that
there
was
some
instruction
as
it
relates
to
what
we
need
to
do
as
states
from
the
court
themselves.
One
of
the
things
that
they
described
are
the
other
components
of
the
complete
auto
decision
and
and
how
it
still
plays
a
major
issue
on
what
states
authority
why
and
how
it
lies
and
where,
where
it
ends,
so
the
modern
presidents
rest
upon
two
primary
principles
that
mark
the
boundaries
of
his
authority
to
regulate
interstate
commerce.
E
First,
state
regulations
may
not
discriminate
against
interstate
commerce,
and
second
states
may
not
impose
undue
burdens
on
Interstate
Commerce.
The
court
didn't
rule
on
either
those
because
it
wasn't
presented
to
them.
We
still
may
face
some
some
issues
as
it
relates
to
this.
This
part
of
the
Commerce
Clause,
so
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
recognize.
Yes,
they
did
talk
about
a
lot
of
the
simplifications
that
the
streamline
project
provided
and
that
the
state
of
South
Dakota
did
in
their
bill.
E
The
south
of
the
small
seller
exception
the
membership
and
streamline
all
of
the
simplifications
that
are
part
of
that
agreement,
but
it
didn't
rule
on
that.
It
basically
provided
guidance
and
it
remanded
the
case
for
further
discussion
associated
with
those
issues
related
to
the
commerce
clause,
so
we're
this
isn't
over.
Yet
I
think
it's
one
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
be
very
cautious
of
moving
forward.
E
It
is
resolved,
it's
been
remanded,
so
they
still
they're
still
in
this
in
the
fight
the
same
as
Wyoming,
we
have
an
injunction
in
place
because
we
sued
the
exact
same
parties
and
we
have
to
wait
until
that
is
somehow
resolved.
So
there's
there's
some
concerns
for
us.
Obviously,
but
I
also
recognize
that
there
was
some
pretty
specific
guidance
in
the
decision
that
that
points
to
the
fact
that
some
of
these
simplifications
may
in
fact
eliminate
the
burdens
that
are
out
there
that
we're
considered
that
may
be
considered
undue
burdens.
B
Yeah
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
the
Wayfarer
case
is
not
over.
It's
not
final,
it's
in
fact,
so
it's
been
remanded
to
the
South
Dakota,
Supreme,
Court
and
I.
Think
the
expectations
are
that
they
will
send
it
back
to
the
circuit
court.
The
trial
court,
which
issued
the
injunction
blocking
them
from
implementing
law
but
because
the
Supreme
Court
simply
had
the
physical
presence
issue
in
front
of
them.
B
But
I.
You
know
when
you
read
the
opinion
you
can't
help
but
think
the
decision
would
have
been
different
if
the
elements
of
South
Dakota's
laws
were
not
there.
So
while
the
opinion
does
not
create
a
list
of
requirements
or
a
checklist,
that
states
must
follow,
you
could
do
a
lot
worse
than
to
just
pattern.
What
you're
going
to
do
after
what
South
Dakota
has
set
up
last
week,
George
Isakson
counsel
for
wayfarer,
said
to
me:
well,
he
sent
it
to
the
MTC,
but
I
was
in
the
room.
He
said,
Wayfarer
is
not
the
end.
B
It's
the
beginning
and
the
result
in
Wayfarer
doesn't
make
the
efforts
of
streamlined
and
other
organizations
and
MTC
and
NCSL
efforts
at
state
simplification
of
sales
tax
systems
less
important.
It
makes
it
more
important,
okay,
because
now
that
physical
presence
Fedder
on
the
states
is
not
there
and
everyone
is
watching
what
the
states
are
going
to
do.
I.
A
Agree,
this
is
just
generally
I'm
gonna,
be
briefly
here,
and
it
depends
how
you
count
and
how
exactly
to
find
these
walls
so
I
know
I,
didn't
previously
saying,
but
this
gentleman,
where
states
are
I
in
the
last
several
years
the
amount
of
calls
that
we
get
at
NCSL
up
from
states
from
all
over
the
country.
On
this,
it's
been
rather
remarkable
and
you
know
so
economic
Nexus
laws,
these
establishing
the
amount
of
academic
activity
into
a
state,
and
that's
this,
the
South
Dakota
style
bill.
Those
are
the
states
in
red.
A
The
states
with
green
are
the
ones
that
are
noticed
in
reporting
such
as
Colorado.
You
know
both
economic
Nexus
and
notice,
I'm
reporting
or
the
blue
states,
and
there's
nuances
to
each
of
these
and
how
they
define
it.
It's
false
differently,
different
just
like
our
states
are
so
you
know
if
you
check,
with
each
state
individually
solve
for
Nexus
or
what
Ohio
and
Massachusetts
have,
and
this
is
the
idea
of
cookies.
A
So
everybody
recently,
if
you
had
to
like
push
it,
okay
for
all
the
new
cookie,
you
know
on
a
website.
It's
okay
because
of
the
new
European
rules.
Well,
those
are
cookies
that
are
on
your
phone,
your
computer,
that
the
idea
is
that's
intellectual
property
owned
by
the
business
or
therefore
that
business
has
property
located
in
this
state
and
I
think
we
would
have
seen
a
lot
more
interesting
cases
going
down
this
Avenue
next
year
if
South
Dakota
had
not
prevailed
but
and
the
next
set
of
law
and
I
I
think
this.
A
This
slide
here
is
important,
because
this
is
where
states
are
going
and
they
were
going
here,
regardless
of
what
happened
in
Wayfair,
it
has
to
do
with
marketplaces,
so
marketplaces
are
forms
in
which
you
have
an
intermediary,
connects
a
business
with
a
consumer
or
a
seller
with
a
customer
that
occurs
over
top
of
the
platform,
so
in
its
purest
form.
Think
of
eBay,
which
is
not
a
seller
anywhere,
but
it's
a
facilitator
of
connecting
consumers
with
seller
or
with
the
businesses.
A
So,
but
these
also
apply
to
a
lot
of
different
I
mean
half
of
Amazon
sales,
their
marketplace.
They
have
a
marketplaces.
Walmart
has
a
marketplace
and
I
believe
that
I
am
actually
I
know
that
states
are
going
to
consider
these
next
year,
and
just
one
word
of
caution
before
as
you
go
forward,
is
to
make
sure
you
know.
A
When
you
decide
to
go
this
route,
you
know
what
you're
defining
as
a
marketplace,
because
you
could,
you
could
have
the
scope
much
broader
than
you
wanted
to,
and
that
could
be
exactly
what
you
want
to
do,
but
or
it
could
be
even
more
narrow
than
you
were.
You
had
meant
to
because
you
can
apply
to
other
types
of
ride-sharing.
A
It
applied
to
something
like
Airbnb
that
isn't
actually
a
tell
their
Indymedia
they're
connecting
someone
a
seller,
someone
with
their
house
or
room,
but
they,
you
know
actual,
you
know
person,
that's
gonna
go
stay
there,
so
I
think
you
know
that
maybe
the
intent
suggests,
if
you
go
down
to
craft,
that
legislation,
make
sure
that
you
know
you
making
sure
it's
doing
exactly
what
you
intended
it
to
do.
Oh
just.
G
Add
that
you
know
a
couple
of
states
have
addressed
this:
we've
got
the
map
up
there.
I
would
look
to
what
they've
done
as
sort
of
a
guidance
in
addition
to
looking
at
what
South
Dakota
did
and
the
marriage
of
those
two
pieces
of
legislation
really
closes
the
loophole
completely.
In
theory,
there
would
be
a
small
business
exemption
in
your
state
for,
depending
on
what
you
set
it
at
South,
Dakota's
200.
G
A
In
a
point
of
reference,
Amazon
Marketplace
is
I,
think
a
little
over
half
of
all
of
Amazon
sales.
If
you
go
to
amazon.com
a
little
that
they're
only
collecting
sales
tax
in
three
states
right
now
for
the
third
parties,
that's
Washington,
Pennsylvania
and
Oklahoma,
so
I
think
that's
gonna!
That's
going
to
that's!
A
If
you
put
the
notice
out
there
and
when
are
we
going
to
start,
and
these
conversations
are
happening
in
state
houses
and
in
in
tax
agencies
and
medicine,
if
this
covers
it
every
state,
but
as
a
sales
tax
and
a
couple
that
don't
and
this
you
know,
this
is
what
we're
going
to
see
as
more
and
more
comes
along.
So
in
June,
21st
is
the
day
of
the
waiver
decisions.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
those
purple
states
because
they
generally
believe
that
they
they're
all
on
the
books
and
it
was
enforceable.
A
July
1
was
you
had
the
first,
several
states,
Hawaii
Oklahoma,
Kentucky
Vermont,
however
Kentucky's
all
is
when
it's
softened
to
implementation.
They're,
actually
not
going
to
go
into
full
enforcement
till
October
1st,
but
are
encouraging
everybody
to
collect
your
met.
October
1
is
when
you
have
that
swath
of
Midwestern
states
that
will
start
going
into
effect,
Connecticut's
gonna
go
in
December,
first
and
I
think
we
have
another
wave
of
states
they're,
going
to
wait
to
January
1st
that
the
yellow
states,
our
state
commented
and
by
this
I
mean
at
the
deal
war.
A
A
Trying
to
figure
this
out,
but
so
for
the
states
that
are
yellow
the
states
that
are
blue,
especially,
but
for
all
of
these
states.
If
you
haven't
reached
out
to
your
Department
of
Revenue
and
asked
where
they
are,
what
the
plans
are
going
hey.
Are
we
doing
this
right?
Do
we
have
a
posting
everything
online?
Are
we?
Are
we
riding
the
clarity
that
the
businesses
need
I
mean
know
being
as
transparent
as
possible?
A
If
you
have
it
strongly
urge
you
to
do
that
that
you
know
if
they're,
actually,
most
tax
people
are
okay
in
the
text
of
agencies
most
they
want
to
do
this
correctly
and
they
want
to
implement
it
properly
and
I've
heard
from
a
lot
of
them.
That
said,
we're
looking
for
guidance
from
the
elected
policymakers
in
our
state.
We
don't
want
it,
we're
not
the
ones
that
make
these
decisions.
We
are
we've
force
the
wall
so
with
that
I
would.
G
So
a
lot
of
your
governors
have
have
been
given
a
civil
or
similar
briefing
and
are
ready
to
go
on
this,
and
so
again,
we've
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
a
lot
of
them,
but
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
your
state
retail
Association
they're,
an
important
resource
and
they're
happy
to
help
on
on
any
of
these
concepts
or
or
pieces
of
legislation.
Yeah.
A
And
that's
not
to
say
if
the
states
blow
up
here
that
the
other
other
than
other
comments
from
elected
policy
or
policy
makers
in
this
policymakers
in
this
state.
These
are
one.
These
are
more
official
actions
that
are
that
they
come
out.
Announce
I,
know
that
there's
other
states
that
are
up
here
that
have
said
so
and
you
got
to
go
through
this
ago.
Oh
my
my
state
said
something:
I
was.
B
Going
to
say
a
couple
weeks
ago,
I
was
at
the
south-eastern
Association
of
tax
administrators
and
there
was
a
panel
of
representatives,
commissioners,
mostly
or
deputy
commissioners,
from
all
the
CETA
states
which
basically
the
southeast
states
there
and
every
every
commissioner
was
asked
a
direct
question.
Are
you
going
retroactively?
Wait
here
and
they
all
said
no
do
a
minute,
so
I
the
more
states
that
that
just
come
out
and
to
simply
say
that
better
off
we
are.
A
So
with
that,
you
know
instead
of
belaboring
going
through
more
PowerPoint
slides.
This
is
actually
the
last
slide
that
we
put
up
here
and
we
want
to
open
it
up
for
questions.
Obviously
any
one
of
us
will
talk
about
this
for
as
long
as
you
you
know
would
like
and
much
longer.
But
if
you
any
questions,
please
well
there's
a
microphone
in
the
middle
of
the
audience
auditorium.
If
you
get
to
go
to
that.
H
Yeah,
thank
you
go
on
new
hampshire.
We
have
no
sales
tax
in
new
hampshire.
Consequently,
you
have
no
systems
by
our
sellers
to
collect
sales
tax.
Under
the
discussion
of
undue
burdens.
Do
you
think
they're
requiring
new
hampshire
sellers
to
have
a
sales
tax
system
that
would
comply
with
regulations
that
may
be
as
many
as
ten
thousand
different
regulations
would
constitute
an
unfair
burden
in
the
context
of
this
decision.
H
If
you
have
a
state
that
has
no
sales
tax
and
consequently
the
sellers
in
that
state
are
not
collecting
sales
tax
locally
and
have
no
means
to
collect
sales
tax,
either
locally
or
through
the
internet,
and
there
are
now
asked
to
collect
taxes
for
other
states
and
be
their
tax
collector.
Do
you
feel
that
the
requirement
of
asking
New
Hampshire
to
collect
sales
tax
without
having
a
sales
tax
system
in
place
with
qualifies
an
undue
burden?
H
G
I
think
for
New
Hampshire
residents:
they
don't
have
a
sales
tax
today
and
whether
they
buy
online
or
in
a
store
and
they're
not
going
to
have
one
tomorrow,
as
it
relates
to
the
businesses
who
make
the
decision
to
sell
into
other
states,
they
have
to
follow
the
laws
of
those
states
and
they
shouldn't
get
special
treatment
because
they're
come
from
a
state
that
doesn't
have
a
sales
tax.
There's
software
that's
been
available
for
more
than
a
decade
to
help
these
sellers
with
compliance
and
if
they're
selling,
through
Amazon,
eBay,
Etsy
etc.
G
That's
all
going
to
be
done
for
them,
so
no
I,
just
I,
don't
think
that
state.
We
can
create
a
system
where
certain
states
become
the
Cayman
Islands
and
the
online
sellers
move
there
and
domicile
there
and
continue
to
sell,
tax-free
I.
Just
don't
I,
just
don't
think
that's
the
way.
This
should
work
I'd
like
to
add.
E
That
if
they
happen
to
be
working
with
a
streamlined
sales
tax
agreement
and
are
working
through
a
certified
service
provider
when
they
sell
into
those
states,
we
pay
the
cost
associated
with
the
software
to
do
that,
and
it
has
been
available
for
the
last
12
years
that
I'm
aware
of
with
and
has
been
working.
We
have
over
4,000
vendors
that
are
now
working
through
that
system.
So
I
think
it
helps
to
mitigate
that
burden
even
further
when
the
states
pick
up
the
cost
for
that
as
well.
B
I'll,
just
I'll
just
jump
in
and
mention
that
you
know
the
the
burdens.
Question
is
one
that
is
unresolved
and
that's
why
again,
I
will
say:
I
think
it's
very
important
for
state
policymakers,
governor's
legislators
with
talking
with
your
tax
departments,
to
understand
that
the
efforts
at
simplifying
state
sales
tax
systems
across
the
u.s.
need
to
continue,
and
until
we
get
to
a
very,
very
simplest
system
as
we
can,
we
can
get
to
because.
A
F
G
Would
think
if
marketplace
legislation
essentially
redefines
the
platform
as
a
seller,
they
would
far
exceed
that
de
minimis
amount,
so
an
Amazon
platform
selling
into
Kentucky.
If
the
small
seller
was
selling
through
that
platform,
Amazon
would
not
be
exempt
from
collecting
and
remitting
on
that
sale.
I.
B
Facilitator
collection,
remittance,
and
that
is
something
that
I
think
that
the
uniform
our
uniformity
committee
is
going
to
be
looking
at
we're
careful.
We
don't
want
to
duplicate,
streamlines
efforts,
but
this
this
seems
to
be
something
that
a
lot
of
states
are
very
concerned
about,
and
is
it
an
area
that
I
think
streamline
has
jumped
into
yet
so
because
there
are
a
lot
of
complicating
issues
with
respect
to
marketplaces.
Like
someone
said,
there's
there's
a
good
200
or
more
being
created.
You've
got
the
issue.
B
You've
got
a
seller
he's
selling
out
of
his
storefront
he's
selling
on
his
own
direct
website
and
he's
selling
on
a
number
of
marketplace.
Platforms
and
you've
got
to
somehow
mesh
all
those
things.
We
start
talking
about
thresholds
and
things
like
that.
So
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done
in
that
I.
Think.
A
He
just
goes
to
undermine
our
gets.
A
general
message
up
here
is
that
going
forward
make
sure
that
you
put
fully
belt
this
out
as
you
go
forward,
because
it
is
a
case-by-case
issue,
I
think
it's
less
so
of
dollar
amount
or
transaction.
It's
more
of.
Have
you
relieved
any
undue
burden
in
order
to
collect
to
remit
our
state
sales
taxes?
So
if
you
address
those
things,
I
think
it's
less
more
than
minutiae
of
this
or
that
it's
okay.
We've
done
these
thing
to
admit
it
as
simplified
as
possible.
A
So
your
question
actually
about
dollar
amounts.
I,
think,
there's
gonna
be
a
state-by-state.
You
know,
estimate
or
state
by
status
as
they
go
forward.
Regarding
the
marketplaces,
especially
I
mean
I,
guess
the
advantage
of
being
in
Washington
state
of
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
is
that
they
got
to
be
out
there
and
really
define
what
they
believed
it
should
be
and
that
other
states
were
likely
to
follow
that
I.
Think,
because
the
follow
that
standard
going
forward.
J
Yeah,
this
has
less
to
do
I
think
with
wafer,
so
it
may
not
be
appropriate
question,
but
where
I'm
going
is,
is
that
after
you
have
the
simplified
sales
tax
coming
to
your
state?
Is
the
distribution
of
that
money
based
on
I?
Think
it's
done
in
our
state
by
population,
as
opposed
to
where
those
purchases
were
actually
made
and
by
the
people
who
made
them
in
a
certain
zip
code
or
a
certain
area
and
how
the
money
is
going
from
collected
by
the
state?
J
A
Think
they
answer
your
question.
This
may
have
been
a
nice
popular
it.
You
know
Cities
conference,
but
the
states
are
in
the
Constitution
localities.
Aren't
localities
are
creations
of
states
and
states
can
dictate
how
they
want
to
distribute.
It
collects
local
tax
dollars
so
that
if
actually
I
was
I
testified
on
Authority
hearing
on
Thursday
in
Colorado,
which
arguably
has
the
toughest
home
world
at
a
different
home.
A
There
are
different
weights
and
they
tax
different
things
differently
across
the
localities
and
to
say
that
you
you
could
your
state
could
pass
a
wall
and
say
this
is
what
we're
gonna
collect
and
remit.
This
is
the
tax
face
that
we're
gonna,
have
it
and
you
this
is
gonna
Clues
gonna,
collect
it
and
then
they'll
distribute
the
money
back
on.
However,
the
state
dictates
it
under
the
state
and
then
and
move
it
down
that
way.
I
think
it's
completely
fine
to
do
that.
A
E
That
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
asked
of
Wyoming
when
the
news
that
Amazon
was
going
to
begin
collecting
voluntarily
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
was
okay.
Are
we
still
going
to
get
the
same
tax
dollars
in
each
county?
That
would
that
we
would
have
otherwise
and
I
said
it.
Nothing
changes
they
utilize.
The
same
zip
code
address
that
we
provide
for
other
sellers
to
determine
what
the
sourcing
for
that
tax
should
be.
E
I
ran
a
number
of
transactions
not
only
through
myself,
but
also
from
from
my
family
in
other
parts
of
the
state,
and
they
actually
got
it
right.
So
it's
if
it's,
if
I'm
in
a
6%
County
we
get
the
distribution
rule
is
exactly
you
know
what
is
in
effect
in
that
County
for
any
sale,
regardless
of
whether
it's.
K
K
General
sales
tax,
but
we
we
do
have
some
of
our
local
resort
communities
that
are
authorized
through
a
local
option
to
have
local
option
resort
sales
taxes.
So
I'm
wondering
if
this
ruling
has
any
implication
there
to
a
local
community
sales
tax
and
then
my
other
question
is
Montana,
does
have
a
corporate
income
tax
and
as
far
as
collecting
those
public
revenues,
will
this
support
the
argument
about
business
presence
in
a
state,
regardless
of
whether
there's
a
bricks-and-mortar
corporation
in
this
state?
Take.
A
That
thank
you.
That's
that's.
A
really
good
question
actually
and
I
think
senator
Heitkamp
I
I
spoke
on
a
panel
at
Brookings
Tax
Policy
Center,
the
Tuesday
following
the
weight,
fair
decision
ahead
of
it
was
Senator
Heitkamp
from
North
Dakota,
who
spoke,
and
she
actually
referenced
a
Montana
senator
who
said.
Oh,
my
gosh.
You
guys
are
trying
to
enforce
your
sales
tax
collection
on
our
state
businesses
and
then
something
that
I
can't
respond
it
in.
What
are
you
doing
to
my
businesses
were
going
to
corporate
income
tax
like
when
they're,
not
there.
A
It's
the
same
thing:
it's
the
idea
that
physical
presence
is
no
longer
necessary
to
avail
yourself
and
that's
following
either
for
Supreme
Court
precedents
or
others
that
you
don't.
If
you
availed
yourself
to
a
market
in
a
substantial
way,
whether
it
be
income
or
whether
it
be
sales
that
you
have
met
the
burden
level,
the
standard
in
order
to
have
to
collect
or
omit
that
States
taxes,
regardless
of
what
they
may
be,
and
that
in
that
regard,
does
that
address
your
question?
It.
B
B
Just
want
point
out
and
and
I
beg
your
indulgence
for
a
minute
as
I
engage
in
some.
Some
lawyer
speak,
but
there's
an
important
Supreme
Court
case
called
complete,
auto
and
complete
auto
laid
out
a
four
prong
test
for
testing
the
constitutionality
of
a
state
imposition
of
tax
related
to
interstate
commerce.
Substantial
Nexus
is
the
first
prong
of
that
test
and
because
Wayfarer
Links
it's
holding
to
the
substantial
Nexus
pawn
of
that
test,
it
strongly
suggests
that
it
speaks
to
Nexus
questions
for
any
state
tax,
not
just
sales
and
use
tax.
D
E
Well,
I
guess:
I
get
the
thorny
question:
if
you
will
about
the
local
taxes,
I
think
your
question
is
probably
tied
to
the
remaining
pieces
of
the
of
the
decision
that
was
not
addressed
in
in
wayfarer,
and
that
is
whether
it
would
create
an
undue
burden
on
a
seller
to
collect
a
local
tax
and
not
at
the
state
level.
In
other
words,
what
you're
saying
is
these
are
taxes
that
are
imposed
at
the
local
level,
not
at
the
state
level.
E
The
question
would
be,
and
this
is
something
that
would
probably
be
fir
for
a
court
to
decide.
Unfortunately,
at
this
point
they
didn't
point
to
to
that
issue
as
it
relates
to
local
administration.
The
tax
they
talked
about.
One
of
the
things
that
may
reduce
burden
was
state
level
administration
of
the
tax
I,
don't
know
whether
Montana
would
be
willing
to
take
that
over
for
the
locals,
as
it
relates
to
remote
sales
or
not,
but
it
may
be
something
that
would
at
least
demonstrate
a
reduction
in
the
burden.
If
you
will.
B
L
Reynold
Nessa
from
from
South
Dakota
state
senator
from
South
Dakota,
it's
more
of
a
question
to
see
if
other
states
are
wrestling
with
the
issue
that
we
are
in
South
Dakota,
which
is
when
we
join
streamlining
back
in
2006.
It
forced
some
of
our
cities
to
to
increase
the
tax
on
groceries
on
food,
so
in
South
Dakota
in
Sioux
Falls,
where
I
live,
the
sales
tax
on
food
went
from
1%
to
2%.
Other
cities
like
Rapid,
City
and
Mitchell
didn't
tax
food
at
all.
They
had
to
go
from
zero
to
two
percent.
L
I
have
a
bill
that
I
would
like
to
bring
forward
to
use
our
remote
sales
tax
gathering
to
reduce
that
sales
tax
on
food,
as
some
legislators
promised
they
would
do
because
the
idea
that
if
we
do
the
streamlining
at
some
point
in
the
future,
we'll
be
able
to
finally
eliminate
the
sales
tax
on
food
I'm
curious,
if
there's
other
states
thinking
about
this,
and
if
so,
if
you
had
any
recommendations
on
how
to
approach
that
issue.
Well,
I.
A
Could
spend
your
money
any
way
you
want
I'd
say:
that's,
not
my
decision,
that's
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
you
toll
10
days
ago,
I
believe
I'm.
Sorry,
my
days
running
together,
they
passed,
they
came
in,
they
passed,
South,
Dakota's
law
said
they're
gonna
have
a
go
to
effect:
January
1,
their
streamlined
state,
they're
gonna,
make
a
revenue
neutral
and
actually
used
the
extra
revenues
to
actually
cut
business
import
taxes
which
you
know
generally
believe
borrow
base
lower
the
rate.
A
Don't
tax
business
inputs,
the
state
of
Iowa
earlier
this
year,
perhaps
had
the
biggest
income
tax
cut
of
blessing
said
well,
I
think
it
was
two
billion
dollars
over
six
years
and
they
cut
their
income
tax
by
broadening
their
base
to
touch
to
include
digital
products.
It's
what
was
remote
sales,
so
they're,
really
to
broaden
it,
bring
it
down.
I!
Think!
A
That's!
That's!
Where
states
are
gonna
go
next
year
now,
whether
or
not
they're
all
revenue
neutral.
They
plan
on
spending
the
money
on
schools
or
roads
or
transportation,
because
the
federal
government
didn't
come
through
an
infrastructure
package
like
they
said
they
would
I.
Think
those
are.
Obviously,
that's
obviously
opportunities
like
the
policymaker
and
who
are
they
planning
to
go,
but
you
know
what
would
be
shocked
if
we
don't
see
more
revenue,
neutral
legislation
and
this
arena
going
forward.
States.
M
Rights
hi
I'm
mark
Barnes
from
Arizona.
You
touched
on
this
in
one
of
your
last
answers,
but
sourcing.
Is
there
anything
in
this
decision
that
ties
the
tax
rate
that
that
would
be
charged
to
the
address
the
delivery
is
made
to
in
Arizona
we
have
cities,
counties
in
the
state
all
have
tax
rates,
so
the
tax
rate
at
a
particular
address
may
vary.
Is
there
anything
that
ties
the
sourcing
to
the
address
of
the
delivery
and
second
question
obvious:
we're
a
blue
state
up
there?
M
G
Say
take
the
the
South
Dakota
legislation
and
the
marketplace:
legislation.
That's
been
passed
in
a
couple
of
different
states
and
do
your
best
to
merge
those
two
pieces
of
legislation
and
that
will
get
you
99.9
percent
of
the
way
and
I
think
you
know.
Michele
Almer
who's,
the
head
of
the
Arizona
retailers
she'd
be
happy
to
work
with
you
on
this
I
know.
She's
been
a
champion
on
this
issue
for
a
long
time,
but
I'll
happily
mention.
If
you
want
to
give
me
your
card
to
reach
out
to
you.
A
This
is
a
question
related
to
sourcing.
It
is
its
destination,
it's
worth
being.
The
product
is
being
delivered
and
if
you
talk
to
any,
if
you
get
any
software
provider,
that's
selling
this
software
to
tell
you
that
they
cannot
properly
collect
and
remit
sales
tax
everywhere
in
the
country,
no
matter
what
so,
please
let
me
know
who
that
is
because
they
all
say
these
are
technology.
A
Companies
that
follow
this
and
in
the
world
were
you
know,
I
went
on
the
plane
in
LA
and
I
immediately
says
these
are
all
the
friends
and
where
they
are-
and
this
is
where
they
like
to
shop-
and
they
know
everything
about
me
but
yeah.
We
can't
figure
out
the
tax
rate.
They
didn't
change.
The
last
four
years,
I
think
that's
kind
of
disingenuous,
so
I
the
software
works.
A
That
being
said,
there
is
legislation,
actually,
the
NCSL
City
Committee
on
communications
financial
services
at
interstate
commerce
about
two
hours
ago,
passed
a
resolution
to
define
clarity
for
sourcing
for
digital
products,
so
that
were
to
be.
We
are
increasingly
becoming
a
service
based
digital
based
economy,
which
is
why
I
believe
that
digital
tax
world
would
in
very
big
issue,
four
states
the
next
couple
years,
because
their
bases
are
shrinking
for
sales
taxes.
A
So,
but
if
you'd,
if
you
buy
a
product,
so
I
live
in
I
live
in,
but
Northern
Virginia
I
pay
for
an
Apple,
my
phone
here
and
it's
bathed
in
the
apps
on
a
server
and
on
you
know
another
state
who
could
tax
it
right
now
pay
right.
They
all
can
and
I
think
that
is
the
digital
arena
arena,
because
we're
not
actually
shipping
anywhere
it's
instantly
on
my
phone.
That
is
what
the
sourcing
clarifications
are
really
necessary
to
prevent
double
taxation
and
pyramiding
on
top
of
each
other
on
on
digital
products.
A
N
Chill
cross
move
multi-state
associates
I
just
wanted
to
revisit.
That's
a
New
Hampshire
issue
briefly,
because
there's
a
really
interesting
link
between
South,
Dakota
and
Wyoming,
in
fact,
and
New
Hampshire,
and
that
they
are
virtually
mirror
images.
South,
Dakota
and
Wyoming
have
sales
taxes,
but
they
have
no
corporate
income.
Tax.
New
Hampshire
has
actually
two
business
taxes,
a
business
profits,
tax
and
business
enterprise
tax,
but
no
sales
tax.
So
the
concern
has
been
raised
at
New
Hampshire
sellers
who
are
unfamiliar
with
collecting
sales
taxes.
N
Well
now,
if
they
sell
in
another
state,
potentially
be
required
to
collect
it
or
emit
those
taxes
so
collecting
taxes
from
someone
else.
It's
not
a
deprivation
of
the
New
Hampshire
businesses,
property
they're,
just
simply
collecting
and
remitting
in
2007
New
Hampshire
changes
own
law
to
adopt
economic
Nexus
for
the
business
profits
tax,
which
means
that
South
Dakota
and
Wyoming
businesses
who
never
travel
into
New
Hampshire
but
make
sales
in
New
Hampshire
are
required
not
only
to
pay
that
tax,
but
to
comply
with
the
tax
that
almost
any
tax
professional
would
argue.
N
It's
much
more
complex
and
difficult
to
administer
than
a
sales
tax
and
it's
actually
depriving
them
of
their
property,
the
other
ones,
paying
the
taxes
rather
than
sick,
of
the
collecting
tax
from
somewhere
else.
So
it's
really
interesting
because
I
do
understand.
You
have
just
concern
about
its
sellers
not
being
exposed,
but
it
is
already
requiring
non
physically
present
businesses
to
comply
with
its
own
tax
laws.
Thank
you
just
a
comment
you
can
add.
You
know
further
comment.
You.
C
Dennis
Brown
with
equipment,
leasing
and
Finance
Association
we've
been
involved
with
the
salt
task
force
and
stream
lines
since
the
very
beginning
and
for
some
people
in
the
audience
here
that
represent
a
business
that
does
nothing
on
the
internet,
that's
us!
So
why
are
we
so
concerned
about
this
issue
when,
in
our
industry
we
finance
leases
of
commercial
equipment?
You
don't
do
anything
on
the
Internet
and
the
reason
is
streamline,
spelled.
C
C
C
You
may
want
to
take
a
look
at
the
streamlined
sales
tax
definition
section
so
364
page
document
as
of
last
week
when
I
looked
at
it
and
it
continues
to
grow
because
your
industry,
which
doesn't
do
anything
on
the
internet,
might
be
defined
and
you
ought
to
be
sitting
at
the
table
when
it
happens.
It's
my
comment.
Thank
you.
Dad.
I
So
with
the
wayfarer
decision
I
mean.
Do
you
what
are
some
of
the
implications
that
you
see
for
some
of
these
localities
that
how
these
tax
share
agreements
and
then
additionally,
I
think
we
kind
of
touched
upon
it
earlier?
What
would
be
a
good
allocation
method
going
forward,
considering
that
these
new
revenues
are
coming
I
know
it's
more
like
up
to
the
states
to
determine,
but
as
you've
seen
in
South
Dakota?
What
is
something
that
you
recommend?
Well.
A
I
think
I
look
at
a
little
differently,
I
think
if
I
look
at
as
an
opportunity
as
an
opportunity,
this
is
an
opportunity
to
actually
address
the
issues,
a
part
of
that
are
in
the
complexities
and
sales
tax
that
and
tax
codes
in
general
that
weren't
necessary
time.
We
have
new
revenues
coming
in
you're
able
to
use
that
to
address
problems
that
maybe
would
have
been
costly
before
that
localities.
A
You
can
there's
a
carrot,
stick
syndrome
which
is
hey
like
do
you
want
to
you
know
in
order
for
you
to
collect
these
dollars,
you
have
to
do
these
things.
You
know
and
I
think
you
can
allow
them
to
keep
their
autonomy,
but
they
won't
be
able
to
get
the
taxes
that
you
know
and
the
eventually
will
come
along
and
I
think
that
there's
those
are
the
kind
of
issues
in
terms
of
allocation
themselves.
A
I
A
H
D
My
questions
for
max
in
terms
of
going
forward
and
looking
at
the
next
year
and
beyond
I
know
that
you
guys
said
that
the
Supreme
Court
case
provided
a
kind
of
road
map
to
see
where
they
can
go
and
I
know
that
we
have
the
lists
of
where
states
are
and
what
they've
said
already.
But
you
said
two
things
that
stuck
out
to
me:
one
about
marketplace:
laws
and
the
other
about
revenue,
neutral
legislation.
D
A
Well,
rover
D
neutrality,
I
mean
that's,
obviously
a
political
decision,
I
mean
what
did
he
do
with
money?
I
mean
that's.
If
it
money
wasn't
an
issue,
then
politics
be
a
lot
easier
for
everybody.
It's
whether
or
not
we
want
to
use
these
new
revenues
to
spend
I
think
just
the
the
way
the
political
climate
is
across
the
country.
A
lot
of
states
I
think
that
revenue
neutrality
is
where
a
lot
of
states
want
to
go
now
they
own
it
to
determine
that
like
by
state
by
state,
could
be
difficult.
I
mean
I,
recommend.
A
So
I
think
that's
that
that's
we're
going
to
see
that
I
also
think
that,
in
terms
of
marketplaces,
I
I've
said
this
for
several
years.
I've
said
I've
known
this
issue,
she's,
probably
about
marketplaces
where
this
issue
ends
up
because
I
mean
we're
so
that
that
I
don't
think
we
appreciated
enough
of
how
fast
commerce
and
the
way
we
buy
things
change
that.
A
A
This
is
it's
rapidly
changing
so
quickly
that
we
go
in
as
soon
as
we
get
comfortable
with
this
some
form
of
Technology,
then
other
innovation
and
research
changes
the
way
that
that's
delivered
and
when
it
comes
to-
and
this
is
generally
across
the
digital
economy-
is
that
for
a
tax
department
to
be
able
to
end
define
what
is
a
service?
What
is
a
product?
What
is
what
is
this
or
that
they
don't
want
to
have
to
define
these
things?
They
don't
want
to
have
to
go
through
and
figure
out.
A
If
this
was
text
or
not,
because
then
they're
they're
screwed
either
way
because
they're
either
you
know
you
can
collect
it
or
why
are
you
picking
not
collecting
taxes?
You
should
or
you
are
collecting
it
and
while
you,
you
know,
and
and
what
did
you
know,
this
is
why
I
tell
what
tax
administrators
go
talk
to
elected
officials,
because
those
are
the
kind
of
hearings
that
are
bipartisan,
that
everybody
loves.
Why
did
you
do
this,
then
so
I
think,
but
in
the
marketplace
is
one
of
those
and
it's
just
in
a
mary
platform.
A
Whether
as
I
say
it's
it's
a
you
know,
you
could
apply
to
a
lot
of
different
things.
Air
B&B
is
it.
There
is
a
marketplace.
Uber
is
uber,
doesn't
have
anywhere
does
nothing.
You
know
driving
you
around
enough
cars
they're
connecting
people
everybody's,
not
hotel
rooms,
they're
connecting
people
and
I
to
thing
for
sales,
so
I
think
the
panoply
of
what's
going
on
in
the
in
the
digital
world.
That
marketplace
is
where
it's
going
and
as
well
as
from
the
conversations
I've
had
from
numerous
state
lawmakers
throughout
this
year
preparing
for
next
year.
A
It
just
seems
inevitable
to
me
that
that's
what
we're
gonna
end
up
and
I
think
the
question
to
look
at
is
I.
Think
to
me
there's
that
question
of
whether
or
not
these
marketplaces
have
liability.
It's
the
degree.
The
question
is
the
degree
of
liability
you
think
they
have
and
and
that's
where
the
focus
should
be
on
and
the
question
then
comes
down
to
they
collected
or
do
they.
If
you're
selling
over
the
platform
you
have
to
collect
and
remit
and
I
think
that's
a
political
decision
again.
O
He's
approaching
my
family
in
Oakland
California
question:
we're
also
one
that,
since
our
local
sales
taxes
uniform
throughout
the
state
with
until
just
a
couple
of
years
ago,
there's
one
exception
in
in
one
area
of
the
state:
never
had
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
the
tax
was
at
point
of
sale
or
where
the
person
lived,
even
if
it
was
delivered,
because
it
was
all
the
same.
It
always
went
point-of-sale
if
we
hold
on
to
that,
because
it
makes
a
huge
difference
in
local
revenues.
O
Will
there
be
any
problem
in
our
conformity
we're
on
this
issue.
As
far
as
the
tax
being
collected
at
the
point,
where
I'm
going
to
argue
that
the
person
the
customer
on
the
Internet
initiated
the
sale
and
it's
so
therefore
it's
where
they
live.
Well,
we
have
any
problems
with
how
we
word
our
conformity
with
what
our
tradition
has
been.
O
Know
you
have
an
existing
structure
that
has
a
lot
of
reason
for
staying
in
place.
So
if
we,
in
our
conformity,
where
now
the
structure
says
you're
going
to
tax
at
point
of
delivery,
if
we
deep
define
point
of
delivery
to
be
point
of
sale
so
that
we
don't
interfere
with
our
existing
structure
well,
we
have
any
legal
problems
with
that.
Actually.