It broadened the definition of what is taxable in california to include online retailers who meet certain criteria. Now, said you broadened. How was it before and now who is included . Prior to the law, the sales tax didnt apply to companies that had affiliates and worked through various different groups here in the state of california. The law broadened the definition of who actually qualities to include those individuals. So now online retailers who have affiliates in the state of california, who also have some form of brick and mortar either directly or indirectly working through other groups and in partnerships and so forth have next us in california by the definition of California Law and therefore required to collect and collect the use tax in the state of california. Companies that are now included would include amazon, best buy, and walmart that are making sales online. There are other criteria that you have to make 1 million, i believe, in total revenue and 10,000 a year to california consumers or something along those lines. Now, mr. Horton, how much in revenue does the state of california expect to generate through this new taxation policy and whats the rate of taxation . Peter, the rate varies depending on the december destination where the product is delivered. Its somewhere around 9. 75 . The total revenue that the state of california anticipated that it was losing was 1. 4 billion. We believe that this new law will allow us to collect, generate an additional 317 million a year, of which approximately 83 million is attributed to amazon alone. Now, 9. 75 , is that the same as the states sale tax . The tax rate is exactly the same as the states sales tax. The total rate varies because we have in california, a december nation tax, so it depends on where its delivered and there are other taxes that are included in the overall rate. Jerome horton is chairman of the california state board of equalization. Thank you for giving us an update on what is happening in california. Now we want to introduce you to a couple more folks talking about this issue. First, Steve Delbianco of a group called net choice and joe crosby with the Retail Industry leaders association. Gentlemen, what is your group and whats his position when it comes to this Internet Sales tax . Net choice is an online platform. Our position is similar to what you might here. You do a lot of big author interviews. If you had the authors of our constitution in here talking, they would say they were really worried 225 years ago about the colonies having trade barriers to protect their businesses. The states cant regulate interstate commerce, only congress can. So our position on california has decided to get aggressive at determining who has presence in california, but that is in keeping with the constitutional provision. California is simply saying that if you have presence here through some interesting definitions, you got to collect for california. So it really doesnt interfere with interstate commerce, because theyre considering anyone who has an affiliate there or a partnership in california to already be a california company. So two things, name a grew thats name a corporation thats a member of netchoice and are you so are you supportive of what california has done . Our members are folks like ebay, paypal, overstock, facebook, companies that amazon . Amazon is not. Companies that have platforms for everyone customers that enabled other companies to get online as well. California has taken too aggressive a step at asserting you have presence in california simply because you paid for an advertisement there. Im gratified to see that california set a very, very reasonably high small cellar exception. They have to do a million a year in california and 10,000 a year through the partnerships and affiliate. That level of small seller exception is a proper one from small firms that they couldnt afford to bear. Joe crosby is with the retail leaders association. Mr. Crosby, what is your groups position on an Internet Sales tax. Thank you, peter. We represent retailers across the board including some of the larger retailers in the country and in the world. Theyre interested in seeing after 20 years of discussion and debate a level Playing Field created, as steve says, through congress, that congress ultimately has the authority to regulate interstate commerce and we think its appropriate with some of the legislation that is out there and some of the simplifications included in the legislations to make it so that all retailers above a certain threshold can collect taxes in all of the states where taxes are legally due. Mr. Crosby, what california did, is that simplification in your view and do you support it . California, we support the activities that california has undertaken. The important thing to understand is california, as steve said, is doing everything it can under the limitations that the Supreme Court has placed upon the states. Ultimately congressional interintervention is necessary to insure that retail is treated similarly across the board so that anyone who is selling is collecting tax where the tax is owed and doing so in a way that they can do easily enough with whatever simplifications Congress Might impose. And we want to introduce you to one more member of our panel. This is Kara Griffith with state tax notes. She is the legal editor and our guest reporter. Thank you, thanks so much for having me. Its an absolute pleasure to talk to you guys and get your thoughts on this. As you guys mentioned, we have several bills pending before congress. It seems we need some sort of federal intervention to kind of get this issue taken care of. Are we going to see movement on any of the bills that are currently pending . Thats a great question. It is a foolhardy thing to predict congressional action especially when theyre out now and will be coming back presumably after the elections for a relatively short period of time. Were certainly optimistic and were working very hard. There is a lot of interest as you know. This year has been unprecedented in terms of the attention that the congress has given to this and other state tax issues. Were continuing to work diligently on it and are hopeful when congress resumes its work that there is an opportunity to move this forward, one of the various bills that is out there. Cara, there has been movement as you know. I testified in each of the last two hearings on these bills. I think that movement is constructive. Its focusing on congresss role at protecting interstate commerce and congress trying to take seriously what minimum simplifications they can require before they allow states to export their tax collection burdens on businesses that arent even having a presence in those states. Thats a conversation i am glad that were having and were having an opportunity to talk about multiple rates per state that is still 9,600 different rates. The states havent all agreed for a single filing form or a single audit. Were on the right attack for that conversation. Will it happen in 2012, i doubt it. In terms of the simplification that we need, what are your thoughts . Are one of the bills better than another . Are there things that congress should focus on that they havent yet . The legislation differs in the kind of minimum simplifications. The quid pro quo it puts on the states in order to let them import, export their tax collections. They all include the notion that the states have to provide some sort of software. Its not enough to have a software that looks up a rate for a given home address. Software has to do Electronic Filing for the states in a standardized form, automatic remittance to every state. Beyond software, there has to be compensation for vendors. Software installation is expensive. Handling questions from 46 different states and audits is expensive for business. They need compensation. We need to streamline the rates and definitions. The bills dont require the states to have the same definition for items that are taxable. Now, in terms of providing software and things, where are the states going to come up with the money to do this . We have a difficult period of budgetary concerns. Is that going to play a factor . Well, they claim that theyll pay for that out of the new revenue that is brought in. Joe and i have both been engaged with the streamlined sales tax project for over a decade. Joe southeastern longer. Streamline has several Software Vendors that will develop, certificate and Deploy Software as along as they keep a piece of the action, a piece of the sales tax that is collected. They dont always do all of the integration that the vendors and retailers in america need. More congressional leadership is going to be need. These things can definitely be worked out. For me, its exciting that after almost 15 years of working on this, sitting next to steve here, that were not talking about whether this should be done, but how it should be done. That shows how the debate has evolved over the 15 years. Its been going on for much longer that. I think there is a general recognition now that there is no principaled reason either legally or economically that sales taxes should not be collected on remote sales. Its a question of how they should happen. With regard to the simplifications, the bills do vary somewhat. They vary from the bills that have been out there previously. It reflects congresss normal balancing of the needs of interstate commerce versus the sovereignty right of the states. The Supreme Court has stepped in here as you know and said, well, heres the line. Its up to congress ultimately to determine where the line should be placed. I think thats what theyre doing right now in the discussion that is being engaged on capitol hill, what is the right balance to ensure that the Playing Field is level for all sellers. While not dually unburdening sellers that dont have a physical presence in the state or putting too much of a burden on smaller sellers and what does that really mean. All of that is going on right now. I agree with steve that this is moving forward in a productive way and hopeful well get some activity soon. Mr. Crosby, if you represent, lets say, a macys or a walmart in your group in the retail leaders association, they sell online plus brick and mortar. Right. So where is the lost revenue for them . Is there lost revenue for them . The revenue is the states revenue. The retailers are simply collecting it on behalf of the state. One of the arguments that brick and Mortar Stores have made is that we lose revenue because its cheaper to buy online. If you look at top line revenue, just the competitive advantage that a seller that is not required to collect tax has, Jerome Horton was just talking about the rate on average in california was 9. 75 . Have you that rate differential. Of course, the consumer has a legal responsibility to remit taxes where theyre not collected from by the retailer, the socalled use tax, but very few folks do that. For most consumers, you saw the news reports on california as this was being played out, by now, this is your last Taxfree Shopping day. This wasnt entirely accurate. It wasnt taxfree. It wasnt going to be collected from the seller and youre up to your own, you and the man in the mirror, to determine whether that is going to be paid or not. You know, the notion of fairness, though, fair is when everybody plays by the same rules. Today that is exactly what happens. Every business, online or offline, collects and files sales tax for every place that has a physical presence. So every Online Company collects and files in states where they have stores and every main street store collects in the state where theyre located. This is a move to let states force businesses who dont have a business in the state to collect that ships a disproportionate burden on those remote retailers, folks that are out of state. In california, mr. Horton told us that part of his law was to capture walmart. Com and target. Com. They already collect in california because they have stores in california. They have a physical presence that is integrated with the websites. What is new is that amazon began collecting a week ago in california. And amazon, as mr. Horton said, is a big part of their expected revenue. If in fact the argument and the level Playing Field is so important, a week into it, we would expect a lot of stores in california to see growing sales as customers flock into their stores instead of buying online. Well, dont hold your breath. Thats not likely to be the case. People buy online for convenience, for choice, and for lower prices without even getting into the sales tax. Is ebay in your view an exception since its often many used items . I would say that less than half of ebay is used items. Ebay doesnt actually sell anything. Ebay is like a platform like classified ads. Its a platform for other sellers. Its a Fabulous Business platform for companies that otherwise would never reach that kind of audience with think new or used items. Ebay is a california company. It was looking out for the interests of small sellers from around the United States that have business. Im glad that california said the answer was no, they had to be doing at least 1 million a year in california before they start looking in the eyes of the challenges of collecting for that state. If you had an ebay seller who reaches that limit and they are required to collect if they are 1 million in california plus at least 10,000 a year that they spend with a california website or publisher, which would be the nexus to california since that california business would be in the eyes of the b. O. E. , they would be acting as their agent. Ok. I would like to take a moment to get back to the idea of fairness. Fairness is a concept that ultimately is interpreted by the individual. Steve posited, its only fair because of the physical presence that the retailer has there. Certainly there is fairness when you have a marketplace, a country where there are very few limits, very few barriers to commerce that all of the sellers are affected. And certainly, although people shop online or in stores for a variety of reasons, if you just looked at all of the news articles coming out of california, you would be hardpressed to convince me that not paying tax was one of them. That was driving all of the reporting on this i find it hard to believe that the papers would cover it like that if there was, in fact, no interest on the part of the consumers and purchasing tax breaks. If i could follow up, its a great point what the papers cover. You can also learn a lot by watching what the most Effective Companies is telling its wall street analysts and pursuant to Securities Exchange commission rules. Amazon. Com told analysts just last month, they drove them during their quarterly kale, youre about to collect sales tax, 10 in california, isnt that going to put a dent in your sales, the answer from amazon was an unequivocal no. They have become collecting in many states. They dont see an appreciative hit to their sales. They arent buying on amazon to avoid sales tax. They have to stand in line if they want to return something. It isnt about the savings of sales tax. In california businesss are looking for this to save them, they have another thing coming. The biggest threat to a small california retailer is the walmarts and targets and shopping malls. Its really not the internet. But in terms of fairness, lets kind of take to the Small Business, collecting sales tax seems to be a huge burden, maybe some of your Small Businesses are going to be blow some of the thresholds. There are those that are relatively small, they got a National Presence because theyre online. It seems very burdensome for them to try and figure out their sales Tax Liability to the various jurisdictions. Is it fair to ask them when they stand to lose money that they nonetheless have to collect and remit sales tax . I think certainly there is obviously an Administrative Burden to collecting sales tax that all sellers that collect sales tax today face. That is one of the important things about the congressional legislation is making sure that the Small Business exception is set at a level so as not to burden the very small retailers. The simplifications in there are sufficient through, not just the simplifications, but also provision of software that works, that those smaller and even midsized businesses dont pay any more than necessary to deal with the collection costs. I think its also important to note, there are small sellers across the country who are supporting this legislation including small ebay sellers. There are folks on both side, even when you get down to the Small Business level. Its not as if its monolithic, Small Business versus large businesses. You have both on both sides. Many of the small sellers have come out publicly in favor of this legislation. Fairness is a big position of it is where you sit right now. Amazon, for instance, will be collecting for over half of the u. S. Population by 2014 because they have expanded their presence, Distribution Centers. In california, they have two Distribution Centers coming up to give sameday delivery. Theyre collecting in more and more places. After awhile, if youre already collecting from most of the country, you would probably take any little bit of simplification as a way to reduce your costs and you also like the idea that it imposes new burdens on your competitors. So a lot of what amazon has done by endorsing some sort of federal legislation is to shift burdens it never had to bear before it became a 50 billion company. Amazon at this point would like to see the burdens imposed on even the tiniest of its competitors. In looking at the bills and with the differing thresholds, is there one that is better . Do you have an opinion on what the threshold should be to define what a Small