Sen. Enzi's bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.01567: See also: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171673.html >Invoking Rule 14 - which allows bills to be considered by the full >chamber without a committee hearing lawmakers placed on the Senate >calendar H.R. 1552, a bill passed by the House that extends by two years >a ban on taxes that specifically target the Internet, such as Internet >access charges. Bills placed on the calendar may come up for a floor vote >at any time with the unanimous consent of the Senate. ******** Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:03:18 -0500 From: Bob Cohen <bcohenat_private> To: declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: FYI Press Release: ITAA Calls Internet Tax Bill Frightful ITAA Calls Internet Tax Bill Frightful Arlington, VA, October 31, 2001 The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) today called S. 1567, an Internet tax bill introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY), all trick and no treat for millions of Internet customers. ITAA has long supported state sales tax simplification, said ITAA President Harris N. Miller, but the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that state sales and use tax systems are currently so complicated as to be considered an impermissible burden on remote vendors selling in interstate commerce. Simplification must be both real and substantial. Senator Enzi s legislation goes the other way. In a letter to members of the U.S. Senate, ITAA said S. 1567 would: · Make collection and administration of transactions taxes more complex · Favor wireless over wireline Internet access · Creates competitive disadvantages for vendors with nexus in a state · Utilizes a flawed definition of weighted averages for calculating one tax rate per state and allows states to modify the system s uniform rules · Fails to provide channel neutrality in dealing with store versus remote sales This proposal has never been subjected to Congressional hearings or extensive public dialogue, Miller said. S. 1567 raises difficult and complicated issues, not addressed by the House in its own Internet tax moratorium legislation. Let s not do something in haste that may come back to haunt the U.S. economy. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) provides global public policy, business networking, and national leadership to promote the continued rapid growth of the IT industry. ITAA consists of over 500 corporate members throughout the U.S., and a global network of 41 countries' IT associations. The Association plays the leading role in issues of IT industry concern including information security, taxes and finance policy, digital intellectual property protection, telecommunications competition, workforce and education, immigration, online privacy and consumer protection, government IT procurement, human resources and e-commerce policy. ITAA members range from the smallest IT start-ups to industry leaders in the Internet, software, IT services, ASP, digital content, systems integration, telecommunications, and enterprise solution fields. For more information visit www.itaa.org. ********* Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:27:56 -0500 From: "Diamond, Richard" <Richard.Diamondat_private> Richard Diamond Office of the Majority Leader US House of Representatives 202-225-6007 / www.freedom.gov Does the Senate Want to Tax the Internet? House Majority Leader Dick Armey today urged Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to take up and pass legislation to extend the Internet Tax moratorium. "The moratorium has expired, and it's time for the Senate to act," said Armey. "The Senate should immediately take up and pass the two-year extension passed by the House." The Internet Tax moratorium, a ban on multiple and discriminatory Internet taxes and access charges, expired on October 21, 2001. The House has already passed H.R. 1552, a bill to extend the moratorium for two years. "I strongly support a permanent ban on discriminatory Internet taxes," said Armey. "But the House bill already marks a significant compromise. We will not consider anything less than the clean, two-year extension we passed. " "If the Senate continues to refuse to take up and pass the House bill as-is, the conclusion is obvious," said Armey. "The Senate wants to tax the Internet." ******** Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:18:27 -0500 From: Jeff Mazzella <jmazzellaat_private> To: Ed Walker <ed_walkerat_private>, declanat_private, politechat_private Subject: Re: FW: Sen. Byron Dorgan wants to keep the Net safe for tax collecto rs? It shouldn't surprise me that there are actually people out there who believe increased taxation is more "responsible" than decreased government spending. By your logic, Senator Dorgan must be ecstatic that the Center for Individual Freedom is telling the citizens of North Dakota about his "responsibility." We're surprised others haven't rushed forward to earn the label, "internet tax man." The sham of the entire "simplification" argument is that most states have the ability now to require that taxes be paid by their citizens; they just don't have the political courage to collect. It is no surprise that they are "quietly" working toward simplification. Once a sizeable percentage of the population learns that "simplification" is just the latest euphemism for large tax whack, then there's nothing to hide behind other than the tried and true "it's for the children." An interstate sales tax compact that will illiminate rate compeition between the participating states is not only irresponsible but also works contrary to what our founding fathers sought to prevent. Wouldn't it be more responsible for Senator Dorgan to discourage such tax collusion between the states and create a more friendly business climate that will attract new business and jobs to North Dakota? Jeff Mazzella ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Walker" <ed_walkerat_private> To: <declanat_private>; <politechat_private> Cc: <jmazzellaat_private> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:59 PM Subject: Fwd: FW: Sen. Byron Dorgan wants to keep the Net safe for tax collecto rs? > Declan and Jeff, > > Since Senator Dorgan's state receives 29% of its revenue from sales taxes, > he could be considered irresponsible if he weren't concerned about his state > losing income from net purchases. While right now this amounts to less than > one percent of the state's income, that percentage continues to grow and > will cause more concern as it increases. This may cause no concern in > states without a sales tax (AK, DE, MT, NH and OR), however it will > eventually hurt those who rely heavily on sales taxes (TX, SD, NV, FL, TN, > and WA all receive more than half their revenue from sales taxes). > > The time hasn't come yet (IMO) when there is a pressing need to start > gathering taxes from internet sales, but it won't be many years in arriving. > The states have been quietly working (without much press coverage) to > simplify their tax codes to prepare for this eventuality. Those who are > interested in tracking this activity should try governing.com or > stateline.org. > > Ed Walker ******** Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:20:22 -0500 From: Jeff Mazzella <jmazzellaat_private> To: Daniel E. Orr <daniel.e.orrat_private> Cc: declanat_private Subject: Re: Sen. Byron Dorgan wants to keep the Net safe for tax collectors? I am very familiar with what happened during the floor debate you reference, as well as all of the events leading up to it. But nearly anyone following this issue throughout its entirety will tell you that Senator Dorgan, through political obstruction, derailed Senate passage of H.R. 1552 before the moratorium's expiration on October 21. While your stated comments may hold some truth in a perfect world, the Center for Individual Freedom acts on what actually occurs in the real world. The fact of the matter is that the Chairmen (Democrats) on the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate suspended their right to hearings on the issue, because of the need to pass the bill before ITFA's expiration. So while a UC request in most instances doesn't mean very much, in this case it meant everything, as it was required to get to a vote. Dorgan's introduction of H.R. 1504, the eight month extension, was nothing more than providing himself some "cover" as he knew that he would ultimately kill the House-passed H.R. 1552, which would have been overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. As stated above, the Center for Individual Freedom acts on real world situations and real world politics. You have the right to your opinion on this issue, but we will proudly defend our position as Dorgan single-handedly subjected the Internet and e-commerce to multiple and discriminatory taxes, and Internet access taxes. Thanks to him, consumers could be charged fees to get online in the same way that they pay state or local access taxes on their telephone and utility bills. When that happens, consumers will know Dorgan for who he is -- The Internet Tax Man. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel E. Orr" <daniel.e.orrat_private> To: "Jeff Mazzella" <jmazzellaat_private> Cc: <declanat_private> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Sen. Byron Dorgan wants to keep the Net safe for tax collectors? > > Thank you for the clarification. > > Your ad and email suggest Dorgan was responsible for new taxes on the > Internet or at the very least voted in favor of such measures. > > This is misleading, but then I suppose that's the nature of advocacy. > > My understanding is that political reporters verify and analyze these claims > as > the public lacks the expertise and opportunity to do so. > > Your attack invites false inferences on the part of the public that Dorgan > opposes the moratorium and voted against the extension. Neither is true. > > 1. A quorum was likely not present on the Senate floor during the debate. > (Cong. > Rec. S10873) There was no actual vote nor could there have been a vote. > Therefore Dorgan did not block one. Nothing the Senate could have done would > have > been binding in anything more than the barest procedural sense. As I am > certain you > are aware any actual votes are scheduled well in advance, with a quorum > present, so Senators don't miss them. UC requests are just Senators shooting > their mouths off. Very, very little happens on the actual floor which is not > scripted in advance by the majority and minority leaders. If there had been > any chance the bill would actually pass there would have been a scheduled > vote instead of leaving it to die on UC. The fact Allen attempted to sneak > it in suggests Lott doesn't support it either. > > 2. Your claim below that Dorgan blocked the moratorium is not true. He > attempted to substitute S. 1504 in place of HR 1552 by UC. 1504 is a > substitute developed by three Commerce Cmte. Dems. This UC request > was rejected by Allen, HR 1552's principle sponsor in the Senate. The result > of the two > objections was no moratorium extension. (Cong. Rec. S10874) > > Allen was, therefore, equally responsible for the failure of an extension. > > The only difference between these bills, as far as I can tell, is the length > of the extension. S 1504 implements an 8 month extension rather than a 2 > year extension. Dorgan wants Congress to have to revisit the extension > before two years to address his concerns. > > Further, Dorgan is hardly alone on 1504. Breaux and Kerry (two more members > of the Commerce Committee) support 1504 and Dorgan likely speaks for Daschle > on this issue. Placing the burden squarely on Dorgan is a gross > oversimplification. > > But as I mentioned, I guess this is just the nature of advocacy. > > For conventient reference, I have included the relevant section of the code > and the two bills below. > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > ------- > Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (Engrossed in House ) > > > 107th CONGRESS > > 1st Session > > H. R. 1552 > > AN ACT > To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through > November 1, 2003, and for other purposes. > > HR 1552 EH > > > 107th CONGRESS > > 1st Session > > H. R. 1552 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > > AN ACT > To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through > November 1, 2003, and for other purposes. > > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United > States of America in Congress assembled, > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This Act may be cited as the `Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act'. > > SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MORATORIUM. > > Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is > amended by striking `3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act' > and inserting `on November 1, 2003'. > Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2001. > > Attest: > > Clerk. > > S 1504 IS > > > 107th CONGRESS > > 1st Session > > S. 1504 > To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through > June 30, 2002. > > > IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES > > October 4, 2001 > Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which > was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and > Transportation > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > > A BILL > To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through > June 30, 2002. > > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United > States of America in Congress assembled, > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This Act may be cited as the `Internet Tax Moratorium Extension Act'. > > SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MORATORIUM THROUGH JUNE 30, > 2002. > > (a) IN GENERAL- Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. > 151 nt.) is amended by striking `3 years after the date of enactment of this > Act--' and inserting `on June 30, 2002:'. > > (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 1101(a) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt.) > is further amended-- > > (1) by striking `taxes' in paragraph (1) and inserting `Taxes'; > > (2) by striking `1998; and' in paragraph (1) and inserting `1998.'; and > > (3) by striking `multiple' in paragraph (2) and inserting `Multiple'. > > SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. > > It is the sense of the Congress that State governments and interested > business organizations should expedite efforts to develop a streamlined > sales and use tax system that, once approved by Congress, would allow > sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes without imposing an undue > burden on interstate commerce. > > --------------- > > 47 USC 151 > > > MORATORIUM ON INTERNET TAXES > > Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title XI, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. > > 2681-719, provided that: > > ''SEC. 1100. SHORT TITLE. > > ''This title may be cited as the 'Internet Tax Freedom Act'. > > ''SEC. 1101. MORATORIUM. > > ''(a) Moratorium. - No State or political subdivision thereof > > shall impose any of the following taxes during the period beginning > > on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of the > > enactment of this Act (Oct. 21, 1998) - > > ''(1) taxes on Internet access, unless such tax was generally > > imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998; and > > ''(2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. > > ''(b) Preservation of State and Local Taxing Authority. - Except > > as provided in this section, nothing in this title shall be > > construed to modify, impair, or supersede, or authorize the > > modification, impairment, or superseding of, any State or local law > > pertaining to taxation that is otherwise permissible by or under > > the Constitution of the United States or other Federal law and in > > effect on the date of enactment of this Act (Oct. 21, 1998). > > ''(c) Liabilities and Pending Cases. - Nothing in this title > > affects liability for taxes accrued and enforced before the date of > > enactment of this Act, nor does this title affect ongoing > > litigation relating to such taxes. > > ''(d) Definition of Generally Imposed and Actually Enforced. - > > For purposes of this section, a tax has been generally imposed and > > actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998, if, before that date, > > the tax was authorized by statute and either - > ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 10:43:15 PST