The United States is the country with the earliest application of e-commerce and the highest penetration rate in the world. In order to maintain the leading position and absolute advantage of e-commerce in the world, the US government actively formulated a tax exemption policy for e-commerce in the early stage of e-commerce development. In November 1996, the US Treasury Department issued the “Selective Tax Policy for Global E-commerce”, adhering to the principle of tax neutrality for e-commerce and not imposing new taxes. In July 1997, the United States issued the “Global E-commerce Outline” to further clarify the principle of tax neutrality for e-commerce. In 1998, the US Congress passed the “Internet Tax Exemption Act”, and the tax exemption bill has been extended three times since its formulation.
With the rapid development of e-commerce, the market share has gradually expanded, and the impact of e-commerce on the real economy has gradually become prominent. The tax exemption policy for e-commerce has given it a cost advantage, which is unfair to traditional retailers. Therefore, some organizations in the United States and physical store retailers have increasingly called for the collection of sales tax on e-commerce. In September 2011, some senators proposed the “Market Fairness Act (2011)” to the US Congress, requiring the collection or exemption of state sales tax on e-commerce enterprises. On March 22, 2013, the U.S. Senate voted on the Marketplace Fairness Act 2013, which was supported by 99 members with an overwhelming majority of 74:25. The Marketplace Fairness Act 2013 is the first national Internet sales tax proposal in the United States, which allows state governments to collect sales tax on cross-regional e-commerce (sales tax is a tax imposed by state and local governments on goods and services at a certain percentage of their sales price, and the tax rate is determined by each state government). This vote is a non-binding test vote, so its result is only symbolic. The bill authorizes relevant states to collect sales tax from all sellers whose total revenue from remote sales (goods or services sold across states) in the United States exceeds $1 million each year.
According to current U.S. law, a state government can only require a retailer to collect sales tax from users if it has a physical store in the state. Traditional U.S. retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Sears have physical stores in various states, so they need to pay sales tax in all states. Online retailers such as eBay and Amazon do not need to pay taxes unless they have offices or distribution centers in the local area. In this case, traditional American retailers represented by Walmart strongly support the bill, but online retailers represented by eBay strongly oppose the bill. Amazon, because it has established warehouses and logistics distribution centers in various states in the United States, cannot avoid sales tax, so it simply turns around to support the bill, which can also help it suppress its competitors. However, the U.S. House of Representatives has held many meetings and failed to pass a bill requiring online retailers to pay state sales tax, mainly because the overall anti-tax tendency in the House of Representatives is relatively serious.
In fact, in recent years, many states in the United States have required Amazon sellers to collect sales tax. Amazon is unable to resist and gradually collects sales tax in many states. As of 2017, Amazon collects consumption tax from consumers in 45 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, Amazon stipulates that from January 1, 2018, all orders sent to Washington through FBA or FBM, including shipping costs, will be subject to 8.39% consumption tax. Amazon will be responsible for collecting and paying local tax authorities, and sellers do not need to take any action. This also means that cross-border e-commerce merchants in other countries need to carefully consider the impact of consumption taxes.
In general, increasing sales taxes is bound to further weaken the benefits of e-commerce to consumers. Taxing small retailers may have a greater impact on the platform, and the platform will also need to take state sales taxes into account in its pricing algorithm. In addition, tax rates for different product categories are not the same. For example, some states in the United States do not impose taxes on clothing products. In addition to cutting into the price advantage of e-commerce sellers, this approach is also destined to complicate the return process, because when returned, the product is often returned directly to the seller, rather than through the e-commerce platform.