EDITORIAL: Online retailers should pay sales tax

IBJ Staff
December 4, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Competition has never been more fierce between brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers. That’s great for consumers, who ultimately benefit, especially the increasing numbers who use nifty smartphone apps to sniff out the best deals.

We have little patience for traditional retailers wishing for their halcyon days, when shopping malls had a near-monopoly on the holiday shopping market.

But there’s one area where we fully sympathize: Retailers and shopping center owners are right in crusading for a level playing field in taxation. It isn’t fair that most online retailers don’t charge sales taxes, while traditional retailers in Indiana must tack on 7 percent.

David Simon, CEO of Simon Property Group Inc., summed it up well at his Economic Club of Indiana speech this fall: “[The] Internet has a distinct advantage, which in my opinion is unfair,” Simon said.

“And hopefully we’re looking for fairness in our tax system. If you sell it in the physical world versus the virtual world, it ought to be the same. … We need to level the playing field tax-wise.”

Online retailers that forgo charging sales tax usually have the law on their side. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that retailers need not collect sales tax in states where they do not have a physical presence. 

But that ruling, crafted two years before Amazon.com even existed, is anachronistic.

Congress could change the law of the land, of course, and at first blush doing so seems like a no-brainer. Governments nationwide are starved for cash in the aftermath of the recession, and enforcing existing sales taxes on Internet transactions would raise nearly $20 billion annually, including hundreds of millions of dollars in Indiana.

But political realities come into play. So far, members of Congress have been reluctant to vote for what some construe as a tax increase, especially given that sales taxes are imposed by states and thus don’t flow into federal coffers. Opponents also argue that many online retailers are small businesses that barely get by, and that imposing the tax could send them over the edge.

Such critics far overstate the potential fallout. It’s time to put their hollow rhetoric aside. The status quo fails any common-sense test and creates bizarre dynamics.

Take Amazon, which operates a cavernous warehouse in Whitestown but doesn’t charge Hoosiers a sales tax, anyway.

The company’s official position is that it’s fair to bill for sales tax, but only if all online retailers do. Amazon contends it has the legal right not to collect the tax in Indiana, and other states where it has warehouses, because the online part of its business is a discrete legal entity.

Rep. Ed DeLaney, an Indianapolis Democrat, wants to end the nonsense. Spurred on by Simon’s remarks, he launched a push this fall to get the Indiana General Assembly to pass a resolution urging Congress to act.

DeLaney has little to gain politically from associating himself with the imposition of a tax. But he believes it’s the right thing to do. It’s time for lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to cast aside the political gamesmanship, acknowledge the validity of his position, and change the law.•


To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.



  • Tax collection
    Are you proposing that each company that sells to other states be held accountable for collecting sales tax for that state? If so then the burden comes on the online retailer; is it "fair" to force a retailer in Indianapolis to understand, enforce, collect sales tax for the state of california, or any of the other states? What about local taxes? Would it not be fair that if one county, or city has a higher tax on its local establishments, that the same tax is charged to a person who lives in that district but purchased the item out of state. Seriously why not, its only money and it is tax collecting by retailers who work for free.

    Caveat Emptor - I know when i purchase from local retailers that i can "ideally" speak to the owner/manager if i have a problem, i am also aware that over the net sometimes i get what i pay for.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

  2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

  3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

  4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

  5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).