Everyone! Hands off the Internet Sales Tax!

Republicans like Christopher Cox, Huckabee and Enzi should disown parts of the 2001 Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) that include Streamlining or Canadian style harmonization or themselves be condemned for advocating a "sense of congress" that we should nationalize sales tax in any way or adopt Canadian harmonization or streamline each states' sales tax policy to make them all the same.

2005 Enzi:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2152

2001 Wyden:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-288

co-sponsors:
Conrad Burns [R-MT]
Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
John Warner [R-VA]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-1481

Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
John McCain [R-AZ]

Delahunt's and others' similar bills just keep coming. They're all based on the faulty premise that small business can benefit.
It is clear these streamlining bills are rejected by TEA America. We like tax-free internet sales; we do not like cumbersome freedom-stifling paperwork.
We want to preserve freedom for posterity. We are preserving the opportunity to go on the internet, sell your stuff and actually make a fulfilling livlihood without the threat or pressure of a tax collector above your head.

According to the MN-ITFA the shopping cart technology used as a resellers agent helps define the reseller/buyer ecommerce transaction as subject to buyer Use tax only.

The MN-ITFA may be "discriminatory" under the federal ITFA. If a reseller uses an agent (shopping cart technology) the buyer is liable for Use tax. The definition is unambiguous given the legal success of Soverain's shopping cart patents. The yearly threshhold at which a buyer voluntarily pays Use tax is increased to $250,000 from $770.
Because the buyer is paying Use tax, the Sellers are not to collect or remit any sales tax, to avoid a multiple tax.

The recent Stubhub! case is an example of how narrow a scope the federal ITFA has and how weak a force for freedom the federal ITFA is:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1539574.html

Notice this part:

Section 1105(2)(B)(ii) defines a tax as “discriminatory” if “a provider of Internet access service or online services is deemed to be the agent of a remote seller for determining tax collection obligations solely as a result of-(I) the display of a remote seller's information or content on the out-of-State computer server of a provider of Internet access service or online services; or (II) the processing of orders through the out-of-State computer server of a provider of Internet access service or online services.” (Emphasis added.) Chicago deems an electronic auction service to be a reseller's agent, but not “solely” because it displays information or processes orders

For the basic elements of the bill and details visit http://www.jamieforstaterep.com/ or click on the "Discussions" tab in http://www.facebook.com/JamieforStateRep .