Legislature may enforce tax on internet sales

Posted 1/17/17

“Wyoming businesses are at a disadvantage when internet businesses fail to collect tax,” Mead said in a release. “This is an important step in the right direction.”

State lawmakers are considering another big step toward collecting taxes …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Legislature may enforce tax on internet sales

Posted

Get ready to start paying taxes on orders from Amazon.com — and other online retailers could be next.

Gov. Matt Mead announced Thursday that, as part of an agreement with the state, Amazon will begin collecting tax on its sales to Wyoming consumers and businesses on March 1.

“Wyoming businesses are at a disadvantage when internet businesses fail to collect tax,” Mead said in a release. “This is an important step in the right direction.”

State lawmakers are considering another big step toward collecting taxes on internet sales: House Bill 19, “Sales from Remote Seller,” passed an initial vote last week. As drafted by the Joint Revenue Committee, the bill would require out-of-state sellers to charge Wyoming sales taxes if they make 200 separate sales and/or $100,000 worth of sales to residents and businesses in this state.

Based off rough projections from 2012, the nonpartisan Legislative Service Office says the bill could bring in an additional $28 million each year.

“From the activity experienced when South Dakota passed similar legislation, it is reasonable to assume that some vendors will license and begin collecting and remitting Wyoming sales tax,” LSO staff wrote in a fiscal note. “However, it is anticipated that most vendors will fight licensure in the court system.”

It’s widely expected that the Supreme Court will have to determine whether states can legally demand sales taxes from out-of-state vendors.

During a Friday debate on the bill in the state House, some supporters noted that it’s not a new tax: Under current state law, consumers are supposed to calculate the sales tax on items they purchase online, print out a form and submit it and a check to the state. It’s technically known as a use tax.

“You have to admit that probably 99 percent of the people who buy from somewhere else don’t do that,” said Rep. Sue Wilson, R-Cheyenne.

House Bill 19 would shift the burden of collecting the taxes from consumers to the seller.

“... We’re just trying to take some of that burden,” said Rep. Michael Greear, R-Worland. “Something I always like to do here is make sure I’ve got laws in place that help me not be a criminal — or help me not violate the law.”

Forty-eight of the House’s 60 representatives voted in favor of the bill on Friday, and it made it through a second reading on Monday. It must pass one more reading to advance to the Senate; however, judging from comments made Friday, some of the lawmakers who voted yes last week still have lingering reservations.

For example, Rep. Dan Laursen, R-Powell, said he would need to see some changes in wording before he would back the bill.

A couple other lawmakers — including Rep. Nathan Winter, R-Thermopolis — said they appreciated the general concept, but weren’t sure if the threshold of 200 transactions or $100,000 was too low. Others questioned the fairness of having a threshold at all.

“Do we want to pick and choose where we apply the law?” asked Rep. Mark Jennings, R-Sheridan.

Rep. Michael Madden, a Buffalo Republican and chairman of the House Revenue Committee, encouraged his colleagues to pass the bill as drafted; Madden said his committee heard testimony that only about 40 to 50 businesses will meet the 200 transactions/$100,000 sales threshold.

“These are the ones that we’re really interested in; these are the ones that are causing an erosion of our excise tax base,” Madden said. “And after all, excise taxes are extremely important for the state, but they’re even more important for municipalities.”

Mead’s office noted in Thursday’s news release that the agreement with Amazon — the county’s largest online retailer — comes at a time when Wyoming “is facing a historic budget crisis.”

“The additional tax collections will not come close to solving the issues the state faces, but will obviously help,” the release said, adding that state officials don’t know how much money they’ll collect from Amazon.

When South Dakota and Wyoming are added, Amazon will collect sales taxes in 35 states and the District of Columbia, according to data on the company’s website.

One driving argument behind the bill is that it has created an uneven playing field between Wyoming business and out-of-state merchants.

Rep. Wilson said that, hypothetically, some people can shop locally — helping pay for law enforcement, roads and street lights through sales taxes — while you could do all your shopping online, sales tax-free.

“Then you would basically be living off their sales tax collections and you would be getting your city’s services at no charge to you,” Wilson said, adding, “I think it’s a matter of fairness as citizens that how we shop now — which is very different than how we shopped 15 years ago — that we should all hold up our end.”

Some lawmakers questioned the impact the bill would have on online retailers, but supporters — including a couple lawmakers who make online sales through their own businesses — said software developed by the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board makes it easy and inexpensive to collect sales taxes across the country.

Lawmakers also questioned whether Wyoming has the power to require out-of-state vendors to collect the tax; Rep. Winters wondered if the measure would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s “Commerce Clause,” which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Also, the Supreme Court’s last ruling on the subject, back in 1992, effectively said states could not tax out-of-state businesses.

“Does this seem a little premature, considering that we might not end up on the right side of a Supreme Court decision?” asked Rep. Tyler Lindholm, R-Sundance.

Bill supporters said the Supreme Court may be ready to change its mind; a couple years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the court’s 1992 decision “now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated.”

Madden also noted that efforts to pass a federal law on the subject have repeatedly stalled out in Congress.

“States have now decided that the best way to proceed with this is along the lines of exactly what you see in House Bill 19,” he said.

A third reading has been scheduled for today (Tuesday).

Comments