It is a shame that our Republican controlled House and Senate supported and passed the measure. It is a shame that the Speaker of the House – who loudly proclaims himself a conservative – supports the measure. It is a shame that the potential Senate candidate – Dewhurst – supports the measure.

May they each reap the political harvest of what they sow.

This is not a special tax on the internet. The tax already exists and is called use tax. The law should be vetoed because no new law is needed. Current law is clear.

**Texas Tax Code Section 151.101(a) – A tax is imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this state of a taxable item purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state.

**Texas Tax Code Section 151.102(a) – The person storing, using, or consuming a taxable item in this state is liable for the tax imposed by Section 151.101 of this code, and except as provided by Subsection (b) of this section, the liability continues until the tax is paid to the state.

**Texas Tax Code Section 151.102(b) – A person storing, using, or consuming a taxable item in this state is not further liable for the tax imposed by Section 151.101 of this code if the person pays the tax to a retailer engaged in business in this state or other person authorized to collect the tax and receives from the retailer orr other person a purchaser’s receipt given as provided in Section 151.103 of this code.

Use tax is the complement to the sales tax, with the only difference being who remits to the state. Under sales tax, the in-state vendor collects from customer and remits to the state. Under use tax, the customer remits directly to the state because the out-of-state vendor is not required to remit.

The issue is collection of the existing tax. Currently TX has no mechanism for collecting use tax from individual consumers. So they are trying to get Amazon to collect the tax for them. This is against the Commerce Clause if the do not have physical presence.

With regards to the final point, an affiliate of Amazon operates a DC in Irving, TX. This is why the state claims they have physical presence. I don’t know enough of the facts with regards to who employees the workers at the DC, who owns the DC, etc to opine as to whether this creates nexus or not.

Your oil boom reference is in no way similar to this issue. These retailers are not creating any new jobs, they are just taking advantage of a system that allows them to avoid collecting sales tax like a brick and mortar establishment. The oil industry created jobs and wealth that increased revenue for the state as well as profits for the entrepreneurs. All Amazon type retailers are doing is changing distribution routes and shifting jobs from one enterprise to another.

Bottom line, either a state has a sales tax or it doesn’t. I’m all for less taxation, but allowing different rules for different retailers is in no way equitable.

I’m sure anyone that had their job shifted to an Amazon Associate or used to work in someone else’s warehouse will disagree with you.

No one really benefited including the people in the State of Texas that had government services reduced because no sales tax was collected on a sale of goods.

Again, either have a sales tax, or don’t.

Nice news this morning.