Comments on: Colorado House Bill 1192 Is a BAD Idea

By: Ida Lau

Ida Lau — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:30:24 +0000

You feel strongly about this issue. Let the house know how you feel; come testify today: http://coloradotechnology.site-ym.com/

By: Dan Moore

Dan Moore — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:15:30 +0000

If you want to read the bill for yourself, go here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2010A/csl.n... and select the correct bill number range (house bills 1151-1200) and look for 1192: "Sales & Use Tax Of Standardized Software". Of course, you just get a definition of what kind of software they're planning to tax, not what the tax rate is, but it is still more useful than the CSIA page I've seen (which is a bit hysterical).

By: jpball

jpball — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:17:24 +0000

Seth, As I read the bill it's a repeal of a short-lived exemption written in 2006, which from what I can research, once suggested software was NOT tangible personal property. The proposed bill circles back around to say, well, indeed, software (standardized), is tangible personal property.

So, it either is, or is not tangible personal property and if so, it “deserves” to be treated similarly to other tangible personal property.

I understand if your opine is “no more taxes – enough is enough.” But to argue that software somehow deserves to be treated differently, is difficult to accept, even for this “technology advocate.”

The bill is sufficiently broad (vague) as to leave room for misinterpretation, which I may be doing, and if so, please let me know. I've also heard unconfirmed rumors that a retroactive component exists, which if true, is unduly onerous, but I can't find reference in the bill to support the posted claims.