Overview
Title
To amend Public Law 86–272 to expand the prohibition of State taxation relating to certain solicitation of orders.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 427 wants to change a rule so that when businesses try to get people to buy things, they don't have to pay extra taxes in different states, even if what they're doing also helps them in other ways. This change, called the "Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025," tries to make it clearer what kinds of business actions can avoid these state taxes.
Summary AI
H.R. 427 aims to modify an existing law, Public Law 86–272, which limits State taxation related to specific order solicitation activities. The bill broadens the definition of "solicitation of orders" to include any business activities that help with order solicitation, even if those activities also serve other business purposes. In essence, the bill seeks to make it clearer what types of business activities are protected from state taxes when they are aimed at getting orders. This update is called the "Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025".
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
H.R. 427, known as the "Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025," is a legislative proposal introduced in the 119th Congress. The bill aims to amend Public Law 86–272, which deals with state taxation, particularly in relation to the solicitation of orders by businesses. The core objective of this amendment is to expand the definition of what constitutes the solicitation of orders to include any business activity that facilitates such solicitation, even if the activity serves another business purpose.
Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns about this bill is the vagueness surrounding the new definition of "solicitation of orders." The bill uses the term "facilitates" without clarity, which could lead to varying interpretations. This ambiguity could allow for inconsistent application of the law across different states or businesses. Furthermore, the bill does not clearly define what is meant by "independently valuable business function." The lack of specificity could result in disputes or legal challenges as businesses and states may have different understandings of these concepts.
Another issue is the absence of detailed provisions addressing enforcement mechanisms or financial impacts. Without this clarity, it is uncertain how the modified definition will be regulated or what financial implications it might have on businesses.
Impact on the Public
The broader public might be affected by this bill in terms of how businesses interact with consumers across state lines. If the law leads to fewer state taxes being levied on certain business activities, it could potentially drive down costs for consumers if businesses pass on these savings in the form of lower prices. However, if the lack of clarity leads to legal disputes, this could result in increased costs for businesses, which might then be transferred to consumers.
Impact on Stakeholders
The impact on specific stakeholders such as businesses, state governments, and legal professionals can vary. For businesses, the bill might be a double-edged sword. On one hand, an expanded prohibition of state taxation could reduce costs related to state taxes, allowing businesses more flexibility in operations and pricing strategies. On the other hand, the ambiguities in the definition could result in increased legal and administrative expenses as businesses try to navigate and comply with the law.
State governments could see a reduction in their tax base if the expanded prohibition leads to less revenue from business activities considered as solicitation of orders. This might impact state budgets, particularly in states that rely heavily on such tax revenue. Legal professionals, meanwhile, might experience increased demand for services due to potential legal challenges or the need for specialized guidance as businesses try to understand the implications of the law.
In conclusion, while H.R. 427 presents a potential simplification and reduction of tax burdens on interstate commerce, its current form raises significant concerns about legal clarity and enforcement that must be addressed to mitigate negative impacts on businesses and state economies.
Issues
The definition of 'solicitation of orders' in Section 2 is vague due to the use of the term 'facilitates,' which can lead to multiple interpretations and inconsistent application of the law.
Section 2 introduces ambiguity by not clearly defining what constitutes an 'independently valuable business function,' which could result in legal challenges or exploitation.
The amendment in Section 2 lacks clarity on the enforcement mechanisms or financial impact, raising concerns about how the changes to the definition might be regulated or affect businesses financially.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act provides its official name, stating it may be called the “Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025.”
2. Amendment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 101(d) of Public Law 86–272 makes two changes: it updates the punctuation in the first two paragraphs to prepare for an addition, and it adds a new paragraph that defines “solicitation of orders” as any business activity that helps gather orders, even if the activity has another useful business purpose besides collecting orders.