Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends a provision of Public Law 86–272 to broaden the federal protection against State taxation tied to solicitation of orders. It revises statutory language to treat as "solicitation of orders" any business activity that facilitates solicitation even if the activity also has independent business value.
Liberals emphasize state revenue loss and public service impacts
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive amendment to expand the protection under Public Law 86–272 by adding a broad definition of 'solicitation of orders.' The legal effect is identifiable, but drafting shortcomings and missing execution details reduce clarity and enforceability.
This bill amends a provision of Public Law 86–272 to broaden the federal protection against State taxation tied to solicitation of orders.
It revises statutory language to treat as "solicitation of orders" any business activity that facilitates solicitation even if the activity also has independent business value.
The change expands the range of in‑state activities that would not create state tax exposure related to solicitation.
Legally narrow but fiscally meaningful; could pass a pro-business House but faces substantial Senate and state resistance absent compromise or offsets.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive amendment to expand the protection under Public Law 86–272 by adding a broad definition of 'solicitation of orders.' The legal effect is identifiable, but drafting shortcomings and missing execution details reduce clarity and enforceability.
Liberals emphasize state revenue loss and public service impacts
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize state revenue loss and public service impacts
Likely skeptical.
They would view the change as a federal limitation on state taxing authority that could reduce local revenues funding social programs.
They would also worry the expansion primarily benefits larger firms and erodes states' ability to tax in‑state economic activity.
Mixed/pragmatic.
They would acknowledge the benefits of clarity and reduced compliance burdens but worry about fiscal impacts on states and fairness.
They would favor amendments ensuring revenue neutrality or limited scope.
Supportive.
They would view the bill as protecting interstate commerce from burdensome and inconsistent state taxation, lowering compliance costs, and limiting state overreach.
They would favor broad federal standards to prevent state interference.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Legally narrow but fiscally meaningful; could pass a pro-business House but faces substantial Senate and state resistance absent compromise or offsets.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize state revenue loss and public service impacts
Legally narrow but fiscally meaningful; could pass a pro-business House but faces substantial Senate and state resistance absent compromise…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive amendment to expand the protection under Public Law 86–272 by adding a broad definition of 'solicitation of orders.' The legal effect is ident…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.