Tech Search

That's because the perk has also cost states as much as $23 billion in lost revenue by some estimates, and they want it b... ack. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) this morning enlisted Republican South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) and other state lawmakers to rally support for his proposed Main Street Fairness Act, which would make it easier for states to go after the money.

"We can't get a hold of it," Rounds said in an interview this morning. He said that Internet retailers "have a competitive advantage" over in-state businesses, which are required to collect the tax.

The history of Internet sales tax -- or, rather, lack thereof -- goes back to a 1992 Supreme Court decision that found that retailers only had to collect sales tax in states where they have a physical presence. Part of the reason was that each state's tax code was so complex that it became too onerous for out-of-state retailers to deal with. Instead, shoppers were supposed to keep tabs on what they bought, calculate the sales tax and pay it on their own. Of course, few people actually do this and states considered the lost tax not worth going after.

At the time of the ruling, the retailers affected were primarily catalog and home shopping channels on TV. But since then, a little thing called the Internet has exploded and e-commerce is now a $130 billion business. Now we're talking big bucks, and the states want to collect, particularly since the recession has left a gaping hole in many of their budgets.

"Instead of raising new taxes, this bill is a common sense approach that allows them to collect taxes that are already owed while coming to the aid of struggling small businesses in our communities," Delahunt said in a statement.

Rounds said in South Dakota, the proposal could net an additional $35 million per year in tax revenue, about 3 percent of the state's $1.2 billion budget. South Dakota has also worked with about 1,200 out-of-state retailers to voluntarily collect sales tax, Rounds said.

About a dozen other states, including Maryland and Virginia, considered bills this year aimed at collecting the tax and employing a variety of strategies, though they met with limited success. Some tried to broaden the definition of the "physical presence" requirement under the Supreme Court ruling to include certain types of advertisers, while others hoped to bill consumers directly for the lost tax.

Delahunt's proposal would essentially give states the blessing to simplify and streamline their tax codes to make it easier for out-of-state retailers (i.e. those on the Internet) to collect the sales tax. So far, 24 states have already gone through the process, but others have hesitated to undertake the project without congressional authority.

The proposal still has a long way to go. Delahunt introduced it on July 1 and it was referred to the House judiciary committee. But even if it were to become law tomorrow, states would then have to pass their own legislation simplifying the code. That means any change for you the consumer is still at least a few years out.

But no proposal is without opposition. Large online retailers such as Amazon and small, mom-and-pop outfits (think eBay powersellers) have opposed these efforts. Trade group NetChoice says that forcing online retailers to collect sales tax is an expensive business proposition.

"Small sellers will spend thousands of dollars making changes to their website software, plus endless time and accounting fees to handle exceptions, customer questions, and state tax audits," NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco said.

The group cites research from the Brookings Institution that found that the amount of lost sales tax in 2008 was $3.9 billion, less than some of the bill's advocates have estimated.