[apillar]

Not only does this fly in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Quill v. North Dakota decision, which holds that an out-of-state retailer cannot be forced to collect taxes for the state..

The money quote. States know that Internet retailers can legally ignore these laws with impunity. This is nothing more than a scare tactic to try and force Internet retailers into doing something they don't have the legal authority to force them to do. I'm guessing what will happen will be the small to medium size retailers will do it for fear of an expensive legal battle, while the large ones that can afford hordes of lawyers will rightly tell the states to go to hell...

[JDW11235]

“small to medium size [taxpayers] will do it for fear of an expensive legal battle, while the large ones that can afford hordes of lawyers will rightly tell the states to go to hell... “

You’ve just inadvertantly described the problem with an income tax at the same time, lol.

[lodi90]

“I’m guessing what will happen will be the small to medium size retailers will do it for fear of an expensive legal battle, while the large ones that can afford hordes of lawyers will rightly tell the states to go to hell...”

Actually, it’s the large retailers that are in favor of internet taxes because they have the resources to deal with the red tape. You won’t recognize the internet in 10 years. Big money is buying off the politicians who are only to happy to take the payola and regulate. The internet will be like just another cable TV channel in 10 years.

[Leaning Right]

an out-of-state retailer cannot be forced to collect taxes for the state

I'm curious about something.

Would that decision still allow the states to force Internet retailers to report their sales? If so, the states would have enough info to collect the taxes themselves.

[ScottinVA]

I believe the Virginia matter pertains to Amazon`s move into the state.