MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W285849097

No Easy Solutions in the Sales Tax on E-Commerce Debate: Lessons from the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce Report to Congress

2001· article· en· W285849097 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David T. Brown

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œJournal of corporation law · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueTaxation and Legal Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSales journalSales taxBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Use taxCommissionThe InternetRetail salesE-commerceSales managementCommerceDatabase transactionLicenseMarketingAdvertisingFinanceAd valorem tax
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION: THE GROWTH OF E-COMMERCE The Internet Tax Freedom Act1 defines Electronic Commerce (e-commerce) as, any transaction conducted over the Internet or through Internet access, comprising the sale, lease, license, offer, or delivery of property, goods, services, or information, whether or not for consideration, and includes the provision of Internet access.2 Until recently, the government did not track the growth of e-commerce sales.3 However, in its first official estimate of online retail sales in the spring of 2000, the Department of Commerce estimated that online retail sales4 in the fourth quarter of 1999 were $5.3 billion, accounting for 0.63% of total retail sales during the fourth quarter of 1999.5 In its second report, the Commerce Department estimated that while total retail sales had decreased between the fourth quarter of 1999 and the first quarter of 2000, the percent of total retail sales accounted for by e-commerce had risen from 0.63% to 0.70%.6 By the time the Commerce Department released its first quarter estimate for 2001, it was estimated that ecommerce retail sales accounted for 0.91% of total retail sales, reflecting general increase in the share of e-commerce retail sales over the course of the year.7 As ecommerce sales continue to grow, many state and local governments contend that, despite arguments to the contrary, e-commerce sales should not be left untaxed.8 In an effort to help the reader understand the states' position on sales taxation of e-- commerce, this Note explains the core concepts of state and local sales and use taxes and the law governing their application. After the background materials have been set forth, the Note introduces and analyzes the Advisory Commission Report to Congress and three relevant suggestions from its majority proposal.9 In order to add depth to the issues raised in the Commission's proposal, this Note subsequently examines, first, an effort by the states to create streamlined sales system,10 and second, Senate Bill introduced after the Commission's Report to Congress was submitted. The analysis leads to the determination that, considering the uncertainty of future e-commerce growth and the impact it will have on state and local revenue collection, and the lack of consensus-- backed uniform sales structure, all parties involved are best served by an extension of the moratorium on state and local sales and use taxation. II. BACKGROUND A. The Sales and Use Tax The sales is a on gross receipts from the sale or lease of tangible personal property as well as certain services.12 For example, when consumer purchases sweater from retail store at the local mall, that purchase will be subject to sales (assuming the retail store is located in state that collects sales taxes). While imposed on consumers, sellers usually collect the sales tax.13 So, when consumer purchases sweater from retail store, that retail store collects the at the time of purchase and remits the collected funds to the proper authority.14 A sale made by seller not located in the state where the sale was made is subject to use tax.15 Every state that has sales also has use tax.16 The use is tax imposed directly on the consumer by the state in which the purchased property or service is used.17 So, if consumer in Iowa purchases sweater from mail-order retailer based in Delaware, that retailer will collect use for the state of Iowa, so long as the retailer has sufficient nexus to the state of Iowa.18 The Supreme Court defined nexus in the context of taxation in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.19 The Quill opinion is discussed in greater detail below,20 but it is relevant now to note that the nexus requirement under the Commerce Clause means business must have physical presence within that state in order to be subject to use tax21 (although the physical presence required is not very substantial). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,805
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,527

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œJournal of corporation lawMême sujetTaxation and Legal IssuesTravaux en français237 207