Sen. Jim DeMint's "No Internet Taxation Without Representation" (op-ed, Aug.1) is surprising and disappointing in that it is replete with outdated and inaccurate information. What Sen. DeMint fails to mention is that in states with a sales tax—five don't have one—tax is already owed by consumers when a purchase is made online. This isn't a new tax. It's erroneous to state that the Marketplace Fairness Act would create "taxation without representation," as retailers don't pay sales tax, they collect it. The in-state customer who makes the purchase and pays the appropriate sales tax has an opportunity every election to render judgment on his state's fiscal direction. Furthermore, because of technology advancements, it is patently disingenuous to suggest that collecting sales tax is a crushing burden for online merchants.

Since the 1992 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota decision, our marketplace has changed at a dramatic pace. E-commerce has boomed, and with the technological development of smartphones, iPads and the continuous expansion of the Internet, traditional retailers have had the rug pulled out from under them. With the unlevel playing field created by the sales-tax loophole, brick-and-mortar retailers are unable to compete with the artificial price advantage enjoyed by online merchants. This has created a domino effect in communities throughout the nation as local stores are forced to close and jobs are lost.

Federal legislation doesn't mean a national mandate. Rather, it restores the states' right to enforce their tax system of choice in a way that is consistent with our ever-evolving, multichannel marketplace.

Michael P. Kercheval

International Council of Shopping Centers

New York

Sandy Kennedy

Retail Industry Leaders Assn.

Arlington, Va.

Matthew Shay

National Retail Federation


The proposed act doesn't call for businesses to be taxed or for citizens to be taxed by governments in which they have no political voice. Rather, the law would allow for collection of taxes on behalf of the jurisdictions in which the purchaser lives and where the purchaser-citizen has a political voice. The law would not obligate states to force collection of those taxes, though most states would.

Steven L. Hendler

Leawood, Kan.

I am astonished to read that Patrick M. Byrne and Jonathan E. Johnson of seem to think that online retailers have it so tough that they should receive a 5% commission (in essence) for collecting sales tax ("The Rights and Wrongs of Taxing Internet Retailers," op-ed, July 24). Welcome to the real world, gentlemen. Brick-and-mortar businesses have been collecting sales tax for decades without compensation.

Regarding the gathering of information, any merchant who takes a credit card over the phone or Internet gathers the address and ZIP code of the customer (or suffers a significantly higher than 2%-3% card fee on the sale). The burden of gathering the information is offset by its marketing value to the Internet vendor.

Harold M. Hoogasian

San Francisco

Internet providers only involve electronic connections and package delivery, and they don't impose any genuine costs or receive local public services that unfairly discriminate against brick-and-mortar stores. The argument for Internet tax collection is just a way to create a new revenue stream for money-starved states.

Herbert L. Caplan


It is incumbent on our lawmakers to design a system that does not burden Internet sellers any more than is absolutely necessary and establishes a "safe harbor" for companies that follow the plan.

Rob McKenney

Ft. Worth, Texas