2015: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Making Permanent The Ban On State And Local Taxation Of Internet Access As Part Of A Customs And Trade Enforcement Bill. In December 2015, Schweikert missed a vote on legislation that made permanent the ban on Internet access taxes as part of a customs and trade enforcement bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "ma[de] permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. It also phase[d] out the 'grandfathering' of the seven states (South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Hawaii, Texas and Ohio) that were allowed to continue taxing Internet access, requiring that they be eliminated by those states until June 30, 2020." The underlying legislation was a conference report that would have "formally establish[ed] the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and authorize[d] the CBP to use an automated import-export processing system [...] strengthen[ed] enforcement of intellectual property rights and [...] would [have] permanently ban[ned] state and local taxation of Internet access and ends grandfathered Internet access taxation in seven states." The vote was on the conference report. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 256 to 158. The Senate then passed the bill, which was signed into law by the president. [House Vote 693, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 644]
2014: Schweikert Voted For A Proposal That Would Have Permanently Extended The Prohibition Of State And Local Governments From Taxing Internet Access Or Placing Certain Taxes On Internet Commerce. In September, Schweikert voted for extended permanently a prohibition on states and local governments from taxing Internet access or certain taxes on Internet commerce. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill makes permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. It also ends the 'grandfathering' of the seven states that have exemptions to tax certain Internet services." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
1998: Internet Tax Freedom Act Enacted Placed A Three-Year Moratorium On State And Local Internet Taxes; Included Grandfather For Seven States; Congress Has Extended This Moratorium Three Times Since Passage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act as part of an omnibus spending bill (PL 105-277) in 1998. The law placed a three-year moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet access, as well as discriminatory or multiple taxes on electronic commerce. The law allowed states that had certain taxes on Internet services prior to Oct. 1, 1998, to be 'grandfathered' under the ban, thus allowing them to continue collecting those taxes. Seven states, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Hawaii, Texas and Ohio, remain grandfathered under current law. Congress has extended the moratorium three times: in 2001 [...] in 2004 [...] and in 2007." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14]
Provision Would Prevent A 'Multiple' Tax Or Discriminatory Tax On Internet Commerce. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill makes permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, "A 'multiple' tax means any tax that is imposed by one state on essentially the same electronic commerce that is taxed by another state without a credit for taxes paid in other jurisdictions. For example, a resident of Virginia downloads a movie from a company based in Seattle while waiting at the airport in Chicago. Three states could claim the right to tax the download. Current law does not establish priority among those claims. Instead, it merely requires credits so the customer is not subject to three separate tax levies. A discriminatory tax on Internet commerce is defined as one that is either not generally imposed or not imposed at the same rate on similar transactions accomplished through other means. Another form of discriminatory tax is separately classifying Internet service providers (ISPs) for purposes of applying a higher tax rate than is imposed on similar information services." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14]
Proponents Claim That The Governments Should Not Charge A Fee On Citizens Access To "This Indispensable Tool." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Today, the Internet has become the primary driver of U.S. economic growth, innovation and productivity and is indispensable for finding jobs and accessing education and health care resources. It helps small businesses find new markets and consumers across the country and the world. Government simply should not charge citizens a fee to access this indispensable tool." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14]
Opponents Note That The Internet Should No Longer Be Regarded As An Emerging Technology; Many Of The Goals Of The Moratorium Already Met. According to Congressional Quarterly, "While the original justification of the moratorium was to incubate a fledgling industry, the reasons for renewing the moratorium have shifted over time. [...] Opponents of the bill believe the Internet should no longer be regarded as an emerging technology in need of extraordinary protection. At the very least, it certainly does not necessitate a permanent exemption from local taxation. Rather, a temporary moratorium would enable Congress to exercise its oversight and legislative authority over the issue as it has done during previous extensions, particularly given that many goals of the moratorium have already been achieved." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14]
Provision Would Have State And Local Governments Forgo Hundreds Of Millions Of Revenue Annually. According to Congressional Budget Office report via Congressional Quarterly, "CBO estimates that the direct costs to states and local governments would probably total more than several hundred million dollars annually." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14]