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.

Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!

Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!
or
Minnesota Miracle Redux - Tax-free Online Commerce - A Win-Win for young and old together.

I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democratic social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.

A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.

A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
It a Win Win situation which costs nothing.
Wait a minute Jamie - aren't we creating 2 Americas - those who buy and sell online tax-free and those who can't afford to and pay Minnesota tax?
Yes - and that's the dynamic that has existed since 1998. What I propose is we recognize the prosperity and hope this generates for the lower and middle class through financial and computer literacy and harness the dynamic for the benefit of Minnesota in the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act - a national first.

There is no ambiguity as to whether Internet Sweepstakes operations will qualify. Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act no online gambling operations will be permitted.

The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed. There is enough ambiguity as to whether we are taxing items including items involved in online commerce, in the streamlining efforts of Lenczewski after 1998 (when the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act first took effect) to call for a halt to her work.

California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm

There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access,
and the limited narrow California bill:

This bill would enact the "California Internet Tax Freedom Act" to prohibit, with specified exceptions, the imposition, assessment, or attempt to collect any of the following: a tax on Internet access, Online Computer Services, or the use of Internet access or any Online Computer Services; a bit or bandwidth tax; or any discriminatory tax on Online Computer Services or Internet access. The bill would make specified legislative findings and declarations in connection with that prohibition.

Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services

Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23

national retail federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389

On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota

The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf


http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf

Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

update
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act applies to both residents and businesses!
update #2

We
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from a buyer and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by buyer only as a Use tax.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Exempt (up to $250,000) all Minnesota consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-business transactions involving the patented shopping cart technology.
All transactions involving shopping cart technology are subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax.

Here's why it is important we support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009

Here's why it is important we support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009 (USl House HR 1560)

http://www.hawaiisenatemajority.com/2010/03/04/in-support-of-streamlined-sales-tax-proposal/

"In 2003, Hawaii became a participant in the national Streamlined Sales
Tax Project by enacting the Hawaii Simplified Sales and Use Tax
Administration Act (Act 173, Session Laws of Hawaii 2003). In 2009, the
State Legislature passed streamlined sales and use tax legislation by
wide margins (23-2 in the Senate, 42-7 in the House) but Governor Linda
Lingle vetoed the measure. Twenty-three states representing over thirty
percent of the nation’s population have already been certified as being
in compliance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement:
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin."

http://salestaxbuzz.org/2009/03/27/internet-sales-tax-cowgirls/
The well-established multistate Streamlined Sales Tax Project (“SSTP”)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=327202
"Minnesota: Similar to Hawaii and New York, there’s the late January
introduction of a Minnesota bill (S.F. No. 282) to tax Internet sales.
Rep. Loren Solberg and Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee
proposed an expansion of the tax on Internet sales that currently
applies to sales of over $770 per year to include all Internet sales.
If this bill passes, it will go into effect June 30, 2009. But will
this one pass? Word on the Sales Tax Street is that Governor Pawlenty
just doesn’t like it very much . . . we’ll have to all wait and see"

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/HF0401.html

HF0401 Status in House for Legislative Session 86
Bill Name: HF0401
Bill Text Companion: SF0282
Senate author Tom Bakk
Senate Search Revisor Number: 09-1384
House Authors Solberg ; Lenczewski

The socialist liberals accomplish two things: 1) they establish 33% of the states as having passed something related to an internet sales tax to make it look like widespread support and expectation exists.
2) They talk about existing Use laws such as section 297A.14, subdivision 4, which allows a personal use tax exemption for up to $770 in purchases per year, as if they were ever actually applied which they weren't, because of the 1998, 2001, 2004
and 2007 Internet Tax Freedom Acts (IFTA).
The Federal Internet Tax Freedom Act is set to expire in Nov 2011.
It is important H.R. 1560: Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009
is passed to renew the Internet Tax Freedom Act permanently.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1560&tab=summary

H.R. 1560
[Good !!]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors:
Geoff Davis [R-KY4]
Virginia Foxx [R-NC5]
Jane Harman [D-CA36]
Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]

[Bad !!]
HF0401 Status in House for Legislative Session 86
Bill Name: HF0401
Bill Text Companion: SF0282
Senate author Tom Bakk
Senate Search Revisor Number: 09-1384
House Authors Solberg ; Lenczewski

H.F. No. 401, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010)
Posted on Jan 28, 2009
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to taxation; sales and use; defining solicitor for nexus
purposes;
1.3amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.66, by adding a subdivision.
1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.66, is amended by adding a
1.6subdivision to read:
1.7 Subd. 4a. Solicitor. (a) "Solicitor," for purposes of
subdivision 1, paragraph (a),
1.8means a person, whether an independent contractor or other
representative, who directly
1.9 or indirectly solicits business for the retailer.
1.10(b) A retailer is presumed to have a solicitor in this state if it enters into an agreement
1.11with a resident under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, directly
1.12or indirectly refers potential customers, whether by a link on an Internet Web site, or
1.13otherwise, to the seller. This paragraph only applies if the total gross receipts from
1.14sales to customers located in the state who were referred to the retailer by all residents
1.15with this type of agreement with the retailer is at least $10,000 in the 12-month period
1.16ending on the last day of the most recent calendar quarter before the calendar quarter in
1.17which the sale is made.
1.18(c) The presumption under paragraph (b) may be rebutted by proof
that the resident
1.19with whom the seller has an agreement did not engage in any solicitation in the state
1.20 on behalf of the retailer that would satisfy the nexus requirement of the United States
1.21 Constitution during the 12-month period in question. Nothing in this section shall be
1.22construed to narrow the scope of the terms affiliate, agent,
salesperson, canvasser, or other
1.23 representative for purposes of subdivision 1, paragraph (a).
2.1(d) For purposes of this paragraph, "resident" includes an
individual who is a
2.2 resident of this state, as defined in section 290.01, or a business
that owns tangible
2.3 personal property located in this state or has one or more employees
providing services
2.4 for it in this state.
2.5 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for sales and purchases
made after 2.6June 30, 2009.

Bill Summary
House Research Department
File Number: H.F. 401 Version: As introduced
Date: March 2, 2009
Authors: Solberg and Lenczewski
Subject: Defining “solicitor” for sales tax
nexus purposes

Analyst: Pat Dalton
"The bill defines a “solicitor” as a person who enters into a contract
to directly or indirectly refer potential customers to a business or
the Web site of the business. States that a business is presumed to
have a solicitor in this state, and therefore has a duty to collect the
state sales tax, if it has at least $10,000 annually of sales into
Minnesota based on referrals from residents of this state or businesses
with a physical presence in the state. Provides for a rebuttal of that
presumption. Effective beginning with sales made after June 30, 2009.
This law is based on a law recently enacted in the state of New York.
The law is aimed at establishing a duty to collect sales tax on
out-of-state Internet businesses, such as Amazon.com, that enter into
contracts with bloggers to put links from their sites to the company’s
website. The contracts often specify payment based on the number of
“referrals” or the amount of sales generated through these links.
Amazon challenged the New York law in a state court as violating the
interstate commerce clause. The New York court upheld that law. "

More caselaw (not part of MN analysis):
http://www.disco-tech.org/2007/01/strengthen_the_internet.php
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/internet-tax-freedom-act.htm/printable