PublishedJuly 6, 2012

House Committee Approval for Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Manager’s Amendment of H.R. 1860, the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act, by voice vote.  The bill establishes a national framework for how state and local taxes apply to digital goods and digital services so as to prevent multiple and discriminatory taxation.  CCIA welcomes committee passage of this legislation as we believe it recognizes the importance of innovation and the need to provide for the continued development of the growing digital marketplace.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), would limit taxes on digital goods and services to either the buyer or seller, clarifies that the customer’s tax address is the only jurisdiction with the right to tax a digital transaction, and prohibits the taxation of digital goods and services at a higher rate than similar non-digital goods and services.

The fact that digital transactions transcend physical borders enables a far-flung marketplace unhindered by distance and geography.  However, at the same time, this extra-geographic nature makes them vulnerable to multiple tax jurisdictions seeking to use any connection (no matter how marginal) to the transaction to take their cut.  The real and potential benefits of the digital marketplace need to be shielded from such exploitation, and the clarification provided by H.R. 1860 would do that.

While it is heartening that H.R. 1860 was passed with broad support in the committee, some members made troubling comments about their willingness to link it with efforts on other bills (the Main Street Fairness Act and the Marketplace Equity Act) that would force out-of-state online retailers to collect sales and use taxes on purchases made by residents of a state, regardless of whether the retailer had any physical presence in that state.  While these bills do deal with online markets and taxes, their approach to innovation could not be more different.  H.R. 1860 seeks to prevent new digital markets from being penalized for their innovation, while online sales tax collection bills would allow states to do just that by targeting them as convenient sources (and collectors) of revenue.  Online sales tax collection is a completely separate issue and we hope that Congress will keep it that way.

  • Press Releases

CCIA Submits Comments On Colorado Privacy Rules

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association offered further testimony and comments this week in response to the Colorado Department of Law request for input on implementing t...
  • Press Releases

CCIA Submits PTO Comments on Examination Improvements, Eligibility for Attorneys

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed comments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office this week on three different issues. CCIA submitted responses to question...
  • Press Releases
  • EU

Political Advertising: EU Parliament Vote Still Leaves Much Unclear About New Rules

Brussels, BELGIUM – Moments ago, the European Parliament adopted its position on the proposed new EU rules for the transparency and targeting of political advertising (TTPA). Together with the Counc...