SENATE BILL 315
TAX LAW IS SO TAXING

Okay, so the taxation of citizens of one state, buying something in another, is a fairly complex little gnarl on the great tree of American tax law. Perhaps there is a need for this bill. Perhaps there is a Streamlining Sales and Use Tax Agreement that has been written or is being written, or is going to be written if enough states pass legislation like SB 315. So long as, by adopting this bill, Oregon is not assuming an obligation to institute a sales tax - rejected several times by the voters - we can live with it. 

But some passages make us wonder. 

“The department (of Revenue) is further authorized to take other actions reasonably required to implement the provisions (of this bill).” The text specifies examples thereof, but such actions are “not limited to” those specified. What else might be reasonably required to implement SB 315? A state sales tax? Naw, probably not. That’s a stretch. But one wonders… 

“Adoption of the agreement by this state does not amend or modify any law of this state.” - which presumably also means it does not create new law, either, though that is not said.

“The agreement must require signatory states to develop and adopt uniform definitions of sales and use tax sales. The definitions must enable a signatory state to preserve its ability to make policy choices not inconsistent with the uniform definitions.” Again, ….. Hmmmm. Can we define into existence an Oregon sales tax? 

Maybe - probably - we’re just over-worrying. But why doesn’t this bill simply state that nothing in it or in any agreement this state may sign onto under this bill, shall be construed to create or require creation of an Oregon sales tax?

Hey - that would be a piece of tax law not so difficult, not so (dare we say it) …. taxing to understand. Or live with. But do we really need this at all, if we don’t have a sales tax?

Ed Johnston 541-336-1233