STORES Magazine - July 2015 - 10
n RETAIL POLITICS Lawmakers Try Again on Internet Sales Tax Two years after legislation intended to level the sales tax collection playing field between online merchants and local stores passed the Senate only to die in the House, supporters have introduced a new version they hope can make it to President Obama's desk for his signature. The Remote Transactions Parity Act, sponsored by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), is intended to address critics' concerns that the Marketplace Fairness Act passed by the Senate would place too great a burden on small online sellers. The Senate bill would exempt sellers with less than $1 million in annual out-of-state sales. But the Chaffetz bill would exempt those with less than $10 million in its first year, $5 million in the second year and then the Senate's $1 million level in the third year. Both bills would provide sellers with certified software to automate sales tax collection, but the Chaffetz bill would exempt those with less than $5 million in out-of-state sales from audits by out-of-state tax officials for as long as they use the software. Online sellers are already required to collect sales tax in the states where they are based. But under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling they can only be required to collect sales tax elsewhere if they have a physical presence such as a store, office or warehouse. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill would allow states to require collection regardless of physical presence. The measure needs approval from the House Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) held a hearing last year and released principles to be included in sales tax legislation. He is expected to introduce his own version sometime this year. NRF says the Chaffetz bill "adds significant simplification to the sales tax collection process." NRF has pushed for legislation for more than a dozen years because the lack of tax on most Internet sales has left Main Street merchants at a significant price disadvantage that has forced some to lay off workers or close their doors. EPA Action Could Raise Food Prices for Retailers, Restaurants NRF's National Council of Chain Restaurants says the Environmental Protection Agency is putting corn growers ahead of consumers by proposing to increase the amount of corn-based ethanol used in the nation's gasoline supply. "The agency continues to bow to political pressure from special interests and ignore the unrelenting pressure the corn ethanol mandate has caused on food commodity prices," NCCR Executive Director Rob Green says. "Consumers, restaurants and everyone who eats or sells food can no longer continue to pay the price for the administration's ambivalence and Congress' inaction." 10 STORES July 2015 The EPA wants to increase the amount of ethanol required under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard to 16.3 billion gallons this year and 17.4 billion gallons next year, up from 15.9 billion gallons used in 2014. That's counter to the agency's previous proposal to reduce the mandate because of falling gasoline demand due to economic factors and improved fuel efficiency. The EPA will accept comments on the proposal until July 27, and plans to set final ethanol levels by the end of November. Green called on Congress to pass pending legislation that would repeal the mandate, characterizing it as "failed public policy that desperately needs to be addressed." The mandate for oil companies to blend ethanol into gasoline was passed by Congress in 2007 in an attempt to reduce dependence on foreign oil. But NCCR and other opponents say the increased demand for corn has caused prices to skyrocket, not just for corn itself but for all food products derived from it, even beef, pork, poultry and dairy from animals fed with corn. That means higher costs for NCCR member restaurants when they buy ingredients for the meals they serve, higher wholesale prices for retailers who sell food - and more expensive meals and grocery bills for consumers. NRF.COM/STORES
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.