[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-302539-105":3,"doc-detail-302539-en":80,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":96},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","the-marketplace-fairness-act-tilting-the-playing-field-issue-brief-no-142","The Marketplace Fairness Act - Tilting the Playing Field - Issue Brief No. 142","","The brief analyzes the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), which followed the Supreme Court’s Quill v. North Dakota ruling by enabling states to require online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes. It argues the policy is unnecessary because many states already rely on consumers’ use-tax reporting, while enforcement remains rare. It also evaluates whether projected revenue gains are overstated, comparing state estimates with academic research on e-commerce growth and compliance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/paper-templates/","Paper Templates",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/the-marketplace-fairness-act-tilting-the-playing-field-issue-brief-no-142/302539/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-marketplace-fairness-act-tilting-the-playing-field-issue-brief-no-142/302539.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Rowan","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-24","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What problem does the Marketplace Fairness Act address?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The MFA targets the sales-tax collection gap for online purchases by shifting collection responsibility to sellers, responding to the limits established in Quill v. North Dakota.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why does the brief say the MFA may be unnecessary?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It argues that 45 states already require buyers to report and pay a use tax, but enforcement is rarely applied, leaving consumers responsible without meaningful collection.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What concern does the brief raise about expected tax revenue?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It questions whether MFA-linked revenue projections are accurate by contrasting state estimates with academic studies that predict much smaller uncollected amounts.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},302539,1790292481,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",{"doc_id":78,"user_id":83,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":84,"doc_module":22,"category_id":85,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":86,"file_id":87,"file_url":88,"file_type":89,"file_size":90,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":91,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":92,"faqs":93,"seo_title":94,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":95,"read_time":26},1099514067415,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539d78ffe74a7?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779092875211072502",21,"| \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS\u003Cbr>The Marketplace Fairness Act: Tilting the Playing Field\u003Cbr>Issue Brief No. 142 by Pamela Villarreal March 2014\u003Cbr>Last year, the U.S. Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), allowing states to require online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes for each buyer’s state. Thoughthe House of Representatives is unlikely to pass the bill anytime soon, the issue will likely come up again. Under the Senate bill, online retailers could collect an estimated $22 billion to $24 billion in sales tax that now goes uncollected.1 |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Road, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75251-1339 972.386.6272\u003Cbr>[www.ncpa.org](www.ncpa.org)\u003Cbr>Washington Office:\u003Cbr>601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900, South Building Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3082\u003Cbr>| The MFAis in response to the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill vs. North Dakota decision, in which the Court ruled that a business could not be forced to collect and remit a state’s sales tax unless it had a physical presence (nexus) in the state.\u003Cbr>The Marketplace Fairness Act should be unnecessary, because 45 states already have laws requiring purchasers of online or out-of-state products to pay a “use” tax on these purchases if the seller does not charge them sales taxes. The individual taxpayer is responsible for reporting purchases and paying the tax, but states rarely, if ever, enforce payment. The MFA would make sellers responsible for collecting any taxes due on sales, but there is little evidence the states would collect the additional billions of dollars in revenue they claim.\u003Cbr>The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013. States that choose to enact the MFA would have to meet five simplification mandates, including establishing a uniform sales tax base for use throughout the state, notifying retailers\u003Cbr>90 days in advance of any rate changes, and designating a single state organization to handle sales tax registrations, filings and audits.2\u003Cbr>However, states that are already part of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) need only adhere to the requirements outlined in the SSUTA agreement. The SSUTAis a voluntary compact of which 24 states are members.3 It is designed to simplify sales and use tax collection from vendors in cross-border states by requiring participating states to adhere to streamlined rules. These rules include but are not limited to:\u003Cbr>■ Making tax rates more uniform by requiring local governments to tax and exempt the same products under local sales taxes as under state sales taxes.\u003Cbr>■ Requiring centralized administration of all sales and use taxes in each state.\u003Cbr>■ Providing online vendors with software that matches zip codes to state and local tax rates.\u003Cbr>■ Simplifying tax returns and tax remittances.\u003Cbr>Under the SSUTA, sellers voluntarily remit taxes to member states. But unlike the Marketplace Fairness Act, states cannot force sellers to do so. |\n\nThe Marketplace Fairness Act: Tilting the Playing Field  \n2  \nThe Use Tax. Currently, 45 states require purchasers of online or out-of-state products to report their purchases on their tax forms and pay a “use” tax.  \nCompliance rates are low for many reasons. First, many residents are not even aware that a use tax exists in their state for out-of-state or online purchases. Second, the use tax is not a reporting requirement on a federal tax return, therefore not subject to IRS penalties. Third, much like a sales tax, the use tax is subject to bizarre exemptions that further complicate compliance. For example:4  \n■ Connecticut exempts a hodge-podge of goods, including bicycle helmets, fluorescent bulbs, state flags, rare coins and personal property used for burial or cremation (up to $2,500).  \n■ Arkansas exempts Christmas trees, twine used in tomato production, and new or used aircraft.  \n■ Mississippi exempts Girl Scout cookies.  \n■ New York exempts products used for weaving. Many other states exempt ","cbCaig2lYYXdoUJr","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaig2lYYXdoUJr","pdf",349024,"English","# Background and purpose of the MFA\n## The Quill v. North Dakota context\n## Existing use-tax framework in states\n# MFA requirements and implementation\n## Simplification mandates for enactment\n## Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA)\n# Use tax compliance and exemptions\n## Low compliance drivers\n## Examples of state exemptions\n# Revenue impact and estimation uncertainty\n## Competing estimates of uncollected taxes","[{\"question\":\"What problem does the Marketplace Fairness Act address?\",\"answer\":\"The MFA targets the sales-tax collection gap for online purchases by shifting collection responsibility to sellers, responding to the limits established in Quill v. North Dakota.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the brief say the MFA may be unnecessary?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that 45 states already require buyers to report and pay a use tax, but enforcement is rarely applied, leaving consumers responsible without meaningful collection.\"},{\"question\":\"What concern does the brief raise about expected tax revenue?\",\"answer\":\"It questions whether MFA-linked revenue projections are accurate by contrasting state estimates with academic studies that predict much smaller uncollected amounts.\"}]","The Marketplace Fairness Act - Tilting the Playing Field - Issue Brief No. 142 | PDF",1789793980,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":97},[98,103,108,113,118,123,128,133,136],{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":129,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":131,"slug":132},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":134,"slug":135},5,"papers-templates",{"id":137,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":138,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":139},158,"General","general-158"]