|
Digital goods are software programs, music, videos or other electronic files that users download exclusively from the Internet.〔See Music download〕 Some digital goods are free, others are available for a fee. The taxation of digital goods is partially governed by a federal statute and has been the area of significant state legislative and rule-making activity. ==History== In 1997, the federal government decided to limit taxation of Internet activity for a period of time. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) prohibits taxes on Internet access, which is defined as a service that allows users access to content, information, email or other services offered over the Internet and may include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package offered to customers. The Act has exceptions for taxes levied before the statute was written and for sales taxes on online purchases of physical goods. The statute has been amended three times since its enactment to extend this prohibition. The first amendment solely extended the Act's duration. The second extended it again and clarified the definition of Internet access as including certain telecommunication services, as well as reorganizing sections within the Act. The third amendment again extended the prohibition but narrowed the definition of Internet access to “not include voice, audio or video programming, or other products and services . . . that utilize Internet protocol . . . and for which there is a charge” except those related to a homepage, email, instant messaging, video clips, and personal storage capacity. In 2009, Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman from California’s 14th District (which includes most of Silicon Valley), introduced a bill to make the Act permanent in its most recent permutation. However, this bill died in committee.〔111th Congress, HR 1560. This amendment would have merely made the ban permanent, not changing the substance of the Act. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1560〕 States levying a tax on digital goods may be violating the ITFA. The states using their original tax code may fall within the grandfather clause of the ITFA, but there has been no litigation to clarify this or other aspects of the Act. One of the few cases brought under the ITFA involved Community Telecable of Seattle suing the city of Seattle in Washington state court, where Telecable claimed it should not have to pay a telephone utility tax because it was an Internet access provider under the ITFA. The Washington State Supreme Court held that Telecable could not be taxed as a telephone provider when it was providing Internet access under the ITFA.〔164 Wash. 2d 35 (2008). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2008_sc/797021MAJ&invol=4〕 Every digital-specific tax created by a state has been enacted after the ITFA became law. These laws may be preempted because the ITFA bars taxes on Internet access, and multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. Courts have yet to clarify whether the existing laws compound taxes or are discriminatory. Although, it is likely that these laws can survive scrutiny under the ITFA because they can be interpreted to only tax services that fit within the exception to Internet access described in the statute and to be the only taxes on these digital products. On the other hand, there may be problems with these taxes because they may cover products and services dealing with homepages, email, personal storage, or video clips. Without litigation, it may be difficult to distinguish the difference between the definitions of content given by the ITFA, such as between a video clip and video programming. iTunes, for example, could be designated as video programming for the videos it sells based on the definition found in the federal statute regulating cable companies,〔“’Video programming’ means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station.” 47 U.S.C. 522(19).〕 and as video clips for its previews. These laws may also run into trouble if they tax a download that is already taxed by another state, because multiple taxes are defined as taxing property that has been taxed once before by another state or political subdivision.〔47 U.S.C. §151 section 1105(6).〕 VIDEO software> Another possible federal limitation on Internet taxation is the United States Supreme Court case, ''Quill Corp. v. North Dakota'', 504 U.S. 298 (1992),〔http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=504&invol=298〕 which held that under the dormant commerce clause, goods purchased through mail order cannot be subject to a state’s sales tax unless the vendor has a substantial nexus with the state levying the tax. The dormant commerce clause could also apply to any efforts to tax downloads. Since most downloads are from companies that are centralized in a small number of states, it is likely that there will not be many states with a substantial nexus to download providers. At present, no litigation has arisen to determine what will be defined as a proper nexus for a distributor of digital content within a state. It is possible that a state would argue that servers are enough of a nexus to tax the content passing through, although the Supreme Court has already ruled that communication by common carrier is not enough to form a substantial nexus.〔''Quill'', 504 U.S. at 311.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Taxation of digital goods」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|