Rep. Schwartz Helps Introduce 'Marketplace Fairness Act'

The act would allow states to require online retailers to collect and remit sales tax.

On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz joined a bipartisan group of 53 Senators and Representatives to introduce the Marketplace Fairness Act, HR 684, which gives states the ability to require online companies that do not have a physical presence in the state to collect and remit state sales tax.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would ensure that local retailers are able to compete with out-of-state internet retailers and would prevent states from losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year.  According to a Carnegie Mellon University study, Pennsylvania lost between $254 and $410 million in uncollected revenues last year.

“It is essential we ensure that all businesses compete on a level playing field,” Schwartz said. “This unfair tax loophole hurts local Main Street businesses and deprives our states, communities and schools of much needed sales tax revenue, we can enable local businesses to grow and create jobs.

The Marketplace Equity Act empowers states to require online retailers to collect and remit sales tax, and allows the states to decide how best to do so.  This legislation does not create new taxes or increase existing ones.  Consumers already owe sales taxes on the items that they have purchased.

The bill is supported by over 200 business, labor, and state and local government organizations including Amazon.com, the National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation, International Council of Shopping Centers, and AFSCME.



Information courtesy of Tali Caiazza, Communications Director, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz

John Smith February 16, 2013 at 02:32 PM
The two previous remarks say it all. It sounds to me that having Danny Roturra working at McDonald's would be a complete insult to all of those employees who work at McDonald's.
Curmudgeon February 16, 2013 at 06:54 PM
@John Smith: What about my comment says it all. Do you deny that this is the first step to tax the internet?? This law removes the presence or nexus standard, which allows governments to tax business not only in their state, but everywhere. The next step would be to try to tax citizens outside the nexus. Kinda like the city of Philadelphia going after Yuengling for tax $$ because they have advertising signs in the city.
Joseph Finnick February 16, 2013 at 07:36 PM
This taxes purchases that if you made in person you would be taxed on anyway. It seems like it was a loophole that hurts businesses without a large internet presence (most of which are small). This seems pretty common sense to me. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (which includes internet sales). The comparison to the Yuengling lawsuit (which is an absurdity) holds no water. Get over it and pay the taxes you should have been paying anyway.
Curmudgeon February 17, 2013 at 03:48 PM
@Finnick: Isn't it funny that by increasing taxes you say we are helping small business. Wow what reasoning. Maybe less regulation wouls help small business. Your leftist convaluted reasoning is unbelievable. Just send an additional check to cover my taxes ok Joe!! The Yuengling comparison is only a stretch untiul they come after you. Why is it any source of revenue is open for the government to confiscate??? What they are really looking for is a Federal sales tax on top of income taxes. BTW regulating commerce does not mean in and of itself taxing!!!
Joseph Finnick February 17, 2013 at 04:10 PM
Increasing taxes on people who are evading taxes that are helping big business helps small business (just as tariffs are used to protect small, home businesses). You see, small businesses do not have so large of an internet presence to sell things all over the country while large businesses do. These large businesses then are able to use their presence and the tax loophole to sell to people (at a cheaper price) who may have instead went to a small, local business. Seems straight forward.The Yuengling comparison still makes no sense and they are not having a federal sales tax. They are only talking about actually enforcing the state sales taxes already in place. You are misreading the law. Regulating interstate commerce may not in and of itself taxing and indeed, the federal government here is not taxing, they are merely stopping people from evading taxes by using the internet loophole. This is just an example of the government evolving with technology (albeit very late).


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »