(Page 2 of 2)

"I've predicted that by 2004, we might see a tax on Internet and mail-order sales, but it's up to Congress," said Diane Hardt, a Wisconsin state tax administrator and co-chairwoman of the Streamline Sales Tax Project, as the states refer to their effort.

Ms. Hardt's prediction may be overly optimistic, given that many others familiar with the effort say a uniform sales tax system could be several years away at best. But Ms. Hardt says she believes that 20 to 30 states will begin pursuing formal adoption of the framework in January and that by next July at least 15 will have enacted it.

Advertisement

Ms. Hardt said she takes heart in the lineup of heavyweight organizations backing the concept. The National Conference of State Legislators, the National Governors Association and the National Retail Federation have pledged to lobby Congress to change the law.

Some major retailers, like J. C. Penney and Wal-Mart, have argued that the current system is unfair, since they must collect sales tax in every state where they have a physical presence, but they compete against virtual companies that can sell in any number of states without being located there.

But the unified tax effort has plenty of detractors, too. A big one is Amazon.com, previously known only for selling books online but now an Internet retailer of many goods, including clothes. The company, whose physical operations are limited to Washington state and North Dakota, is already lobbying Congress to reject the Streamline Sales Tax Project's framework.

The reason Amazon opposes the framework is not the fact that the company could be required to charge and collect sales tax on its $3 billion in annual sales, according to Rich Prem, the company's director of global indirect taxes.

Mr. Prem said that Amazon, which has monitored the streamlining process for two years, believes that the agreement fails to address several major issues that have an impact on Internet-based businesses. For instance, he said, the agreement did not specify whether states should define the sale of digital intellectual property — like music sold over the Internet — as goods or services. The distinction is crucial, Mr. Prem said, because many states do not currently tax services at all.

Further, he said, the agreement does not force states to streamline taxes for shipping and handling. Nor, he said, does it have a means to compensate Internet retailers fully for the cost of collecting the taxes.

"If you want to go to Congress, then the states have to meet us halfway and bear some of the real costs of collecting the tax," Mr. Prem said.

In terms of simplifying taxes, "this is as good of an effort as I've seen in 20 years," Mr. Prem said. "But the devil is in the details."