I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today

I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.

Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System

nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles

Below is a recent comment received in regard to the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.

blog said...

In your opening paragraph, you point out your opposition to an awful lot of organizations because their "streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act."

This is a common misconception of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Please take a moment to review the 1998 ITFA, in particular § 1104 (2). It describes that no new and discriminatory tax shall be placed on electronic commerce that would not otherwise be due on similar transactions to purchase any property, goods, services, or information through other means.

Sales and use taxes were adopted by the state of Minnesota in 1967 – and since then sale tax has been due on all transactions in the state, unless the purchaser has a valid entity exemption, or the item itself is subject to an exemption.

Exemptions are not available based upon the forum of a particular transaction – as such a definition would be discriminatory and would amount to government favoritism over a particular marketplace.

The ITFA in no way creates any forum-specific exemption for e-commerce. Is this what you are suggesting will be the goal of your “Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act?” I would expect a few retail malls might also appreciate such favoritism. Of course, as long as you are handing out forum-specific tax exemptions, I would expect that a few independent retailers may also appreciate such treatment.

The State of Minnesota is projecting a $4 billion shortfall this year (FY 2011). Last year, Minnesota failed to collect at least $143 million. No matter how aggressively MN continues to cut spending, it will be very difficult to reduce the budget by 25%. The Main Street Fairness Act (HR 5660) will grant Minnesota the right to compel out of state merchants collect and remit local sales taxes.

With the budget crisis being endured by governments across the country, the best ideas will control spending and income in a measured and prudent manner. It is a matter if basic responsibility that Minnesota should collect the tax that is already due, before forcing citizens to endure escalating taxes or reduced services. The Main Street Fairness Act, and the efforts of the 44 states (including Minnesota) in the Streamlined effort over the last 10 years should not be so quickly dismissed as they do not represent a new tax, nor a discriminatory tax on the internet – simply a mechanism to allow states to collect sales taxes which are already due.

R. David L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
The Federal Tax Authority (FedTax.net)



I reponded:


In the SSTGB effort to standardize categories - http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota2010/Minnesota%20Certificate%20of%20Compliance%202010.pdf - great effort is made to exclude specific technologies but no effort is made to exclude or include the shopping cart and online auction technologies most commonly used for e-commerce. We need to address these technologies. Show me where in the SSTGB documents you address these technologies. Eventually organizations like fedtax.net would like to see shopping-cart technology, not currently taxed, dumped into a taxable category such as "telecommunications services". This is dead wrong. It is important we preserve the current tax-free state of this body of technology or the marketplace forum, whatever is current law (and with all due respect I'm not sure you are correct in saying no marketplace-forum-based exclusions exist in tax codes) for future generations. Once taxed, the technology or forum will never again be exempted because the argument that expected revenue is lost will be used.