Computer & Communication Industry Association
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.

News

Short-Term Rentals: CCIA Europe Responds to EU Court Ruling on Brussels’ Restrictions

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling in Smartflats SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Case C-813/24), a case examining whether local restrictions on short-term r...
reading-tablet
  • Statements
    Digital Economy
News

Upcoming Digital Fairness Act Risks Duplicating Existing EU Rules, New Explainer Warns

The EU’s upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA), due to be published by the European Commission on 11 November 2026, should strengthen enforcement of existing rules and avoid undermining the benefits t...
reading-tablet
  • Statements
    European Union
News

CCIA Study Finds South Korea Fines U.S. Companies Up to Seven Times More Than Korean Firms Relative to Business Activity

Washington – A new study by the CCIA Research Center finds that South Korea’s competition authority imposes penalties on U.S. companies at rates four to seven times higher than those applied to Ko...
reading-tablet
  • Press Releases
    Competition
News

CCIA UK Responds to CMA Investigation of Microsoft’s Business Software Ecosystem

London – The UK Competition and Markets Authority today announced the next stage in its Strategic Market Status (SMS) investigation regarding Microsoft's business software ecosystem. This includes a...
reading-tablet
  • Press Releases
  • Competition