SR9,1,63 Whereas, as a result of the 1967 Bellas Hess U.S. Supreme Court decision and
4the 1992 Quill U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin and other states have been
5denied the authority to require the collection of sales and use taxes by remote sellers
6that have no physical presence in the state to which the item is delivered; and

SR9,1,107 Whereas, the combined weight of the inability to collect sales and use taxes due
8on remote sales through traditional carriers and the continued erosion of the tax base
9due to electronic commerce threatens the future viability of the sales and use tax as
10a stable revenue source for state and local governments; and

SR9,1,1311 Whereas, studies have estimated that Wisconsin will lose in excess of $150
12million a year in sales and use taxes due on sales made by remote sellers to Wisconsin
13purchasers; and

SR9,2,314 Whereas, Wisconsin joined 33 other states to enact legislation expressing the
15intent of the state to simplify and modernize the state's sales and use tax collection

---

1systems and to participate in multistate discussions to finalize and ratify an
2interstate agreement to streamline the administration and collection of the states'
3sales and use taxes; and

SR9,2,74 Whereas, these states unanimously ratified the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
5Agreement (Agreement), which substantially simplifies and modernizes state and
6local sales and use tax systems, removes the burdens to interstate commerce that
7were of concern to the U.S. Supreme Court, and protects state sovereignty; and

SR9,2,108 Whereas, 22 states representing over 35 percent of the total population of the
9United States have already enacted legislation to bring their state's sales and use tax
10statutes into compliance with the Agreement; and

SR9,2,1311 Whereas, nearly 1,100 remote sellers have already voluntarily registered and
12are participating in the simplification effort in the states that have conformed their
13laws to the requirements of the Agreement; and

SR9,2,1614 Whereas, Wisconsin state law already requires the payment of sales or use tax
15on purchases made from on-line, catalog, and other remote sellers but does not have
16an effective method of collecting this tax from the individual consumers; and

SR9,2,1917 Whereas, as a result of not having an effective method of collection of these
18taxes from individual consumers, Wisconsin is losing millions of dollars each year;
19and

SR9,2,2320 Whereas, main-street merchants and businesses who already collect and remit
21sales and use tax to the state of Wisconsin are placed at a significant competitive
22disadvantage by on-line, catalog, and other remote sellers who are not required to
23collect and remit the tax; and

SR9,3,3

---

1Whereas, the burden of remitting the sales and use tax on purchases from
2on-line, catalog, and other remote sellers who are not required to collect the tax is
3then placed on the individual consumers; and

SR9,3,64 Whereas, most individual consumers do not know of the requirement or simply
5fail to remit this tax, thereby unknowingly subjecting themselves to possible interest
6and penalties if the sales or use tax is not paid in a timely manner; and

SR9,3,97 Whereas, the Main Street Equity Act to simplify and modernize the Wisconsin
8sales and use tax statutes would add Wisconsin to the list of over 20 other states who
9are already complying with the Agreement; and

SR9,3,1110 Whereas, the Main Street Equity Act was included in the 2007-09 biennial
11budget by Governor Doyle and was approved in the Wisconsin state senate; and

SR9,3,1512 Whereas, the Wisconsin legislation acknowledges the complexities of the
13current sales and use tax collection system, and is responsive to the interests of the
14business community and protecting individual consumers by formulating a truly
15simplified and streamlined collection system; and

SR9,3,2116 Whereas, the Main Street Equity Act has the support of a broad coalition of
17Wisconsin and multistate merchants, trade associations, and businesses, large and
18small, including department stores, hardware stores, jewelers, book sellers, grocers,
19convenience stores, and telecommunication companies who desire a more simplified
20and modernized sales and use tax system that is uniform and fair for all Wisconsin
21residents and businesses; and

SR9,3,2322 Whereas, H.R. 3396, the Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act has been
23offered in the U.S. House of Representatives; and

SR9,4,224 Whereas, the legislation would sanction the multistate agreement and require
25sellers to collect sales and use taxes for all states that conform to the terms of the

---

1agreement, thereby leveling the playing field for all retailers and ensuring the future
2vitality of a major consumption tax; and

SR9,4,63 Whereas, Wisconsin's Main Street Equity Act and the Streamlined Sales and
4Use Tax Agreement demonstrates state government's ability to modernize and
5simplify our sales tax system to conform to the 21st century, while reducing the
6burden on retailers; and

SR9,4,87 Whereas, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial
8Law of the Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on December 6, 2007; and

SR9,4,139 Whereas, Congress must adopt legislation to provide the authority for
10Wisconsin and any other state that conforms its laws to the requirements of the
11Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and becomes a full member state to be
12permitted to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes for their
13state; now, therefore, be it