Rocky Mountain Low: Colorado’s New “Track & Tax” Law Invades Consumer Privacy

by on March 12, 2010 · 6 comments

He climbed cathedral mountains, he saw silver clouds below

He saw everything as far as you can see

And they say that he got crazy once and he tried to touch the sun

And he lost a friend but kept his memory

-John Denver, Rocky Mountain High

We know that states are increasingly looking to tax anything and everything, including on the Internet. As Declan McCullagh reported earlier this week, Colorado and “fifteen other states have considered or are considering enacting laws targeting Amazon and other e-commerce companies that typically do not charge sales tax for shipments sent outside their home state.” These nexus taxes are #2 on the NetChoice iAWFUL list of bad legislation.

But Colorado’s recent “track and tax” law marks the most privacy-egregious Internet-related tax law we’ve seen.

Here’s the rub:  The Colorado state tax department will now have a listing of all purchases its citizens make from out-of-state companies. Why? So it can enforce its tax on purchases by way of the use tax that each of us owes to our government when sales tax isn’t collected.

HB 1193 was enacted last month as part of a package of revenue raising legislation. It originally started as an advertising nexus bill, but turned into a reporting bill when a lot of in-state companies that rely on affiliate advertising revenue complained that they would be harmed. Now it is consumer privacy that is harmed.

HB 1193 forces out-of-state retailers to track and report the purchases of Coloradans: (a) must file an annual statement with purchase data for each purchaser to the Department of Revenue; (b) must send buyers a summary statement of all their purchases so they know how much use tax to pay (like a 1099 form we receive on investments); and (c) on every invoice and receipt must notify Colorado purchasers of their need to file a sales and use tax return with the state;

The state revenue department just issued emergency regulations to resolve some but not all of the questions from retailers. Unfortunately, the department assumes that the legislature wanted notices shown on every single invoice — effective as of last week.  And the state hasn’t yet told online retailers how they would send snail mail reports to purchasers for whom they have no mailing address.

So that it can earn a few more bucks in sales tax, Colorado’s Department of Revenue will now know all the vendors where residents made online or catalog purchases from remote sellers. This would include sensitive items of a particular kind of merchandise — sex items, specialty books, items that reveal political views, etc.

When Colorado residents learn that this law makes them pay more taxes, they’re not going to be happy.  And they’ll be positively perturbed when they learn that the state is collecting information about their personal purchases. I would hope that other states will wait to see the blow-back from Colorado voters before copying Colorado’s law.

I see a new version of John Denver’s song:

He climbed the capitol dome, he saw silver dollars below

He saw every out-of-state purchase as far as you can see

And they say that he got crazy once and invaded consumer privacy

And he lost voter confidence but kept his memory—don’t do this again.

  • Dominic

    What happened to America? Did we suddenly revert back to 12th century English rule? What ever happened to the time where disputes were just between awful indie band names?? http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/03/08/shorta

  • http://www.dianahsieh.com/ Diana Hsieh

    I'd not considered the privacy angle, but that makes the law even worse. Unfortunately, the tax-happy left seems determined to blame Amazon for terminating the Colorado Associates, when the Democratic legislature is clearly to blame.

    You and your readers might be interested in my super-quick web site:

    http://www.RepealTheAmazonTax.com/

    (I'm going to add a link to your post to the “further reading” section.)

    If you want to help pressure the Colorado legislature to repeal this awful law, please join the low-volume e-mail list, NoAmazonTax:

    http://groups.google.com/group/noamazontax

    Please spread the word! Thanks!

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Interesting argument against taxes, clearly showing the right is flailing about, grasing at straws in the determination to continue the “tax-free” internet. There is no reason that, simply because a business is on the internet that it should be un-taxed. To tax brick and mortar stories and not those that are on the internet is, in effect, a subsidy of the internet businesses. It gives the internet business an entirely unfair advantage in their competition against non-internet stories.

    I am deeply pro-market, and do not want to see a playing field that is not level. To tilt the market to the benefit of just certain types of businesses leads to market distortions, and all of society will be hurt by that, as well as the hurt inflicted by loss of tax revenue.

  • Dominic

    What happened to America? Did we suddenly revert back to 12th century English rule? What ever happened to the time where disputes were just between awful indie band names?? http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/03/08/shorta

  • http://www.dianahsieh.com/ Diana Hsieh

    I'd not considered the privacy angle, but that makes the law even worse. Unfortunately, the tax-happy left seems determined to blame Amazon for terminating the Colorado Associates, when the Democratic legislature is clearly to blame.

    You and your readers might be interested in my super-quick web site:

    http://www.RepealTheAmazonTax.com/

    (I'm going to add a link to your post to the “further reading” section.)

    If you want to help pressure the Colorado legislature to repeal this awful law, please join the low-volume e-mail list, NoAmazonTax:

    http://groups.google.com/group/noamazontax

    Please spread the word! Thanks!

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Interesting argument against taxes, clearly showing the right is flailing about, grasing at straws in the determination to continue the “tax-free” internet. There is no reason that, simply because a business is on the internet that it should be un-taxed. To tax brick and mortar stories and not those that are on the internet is, in effect, a subsidy of the internet businesses. It gives the internet business an entirely unfair advantage in their competition against non-internet stories.

    I am deeply pro-market, and do not want to see a playing field that is not level. To tilt the market to the benefit of just certain types of businesses leads to market distortions, and all of society will be hurt by that, as well as the hurt inflicted by loss of tax revenue.

Previous post:

Next post: