Laura Smitherman reports that lawmakers are talking again about an "Internet sales tax" in Maryland that would apply to online merchants not now collecting the 6 percent sales tax that state-based stores must remit.

An Internet sales tax is another proposal that has drawn support. Backers say that such a tax would ensure fairness. Under the current system, some online purchases are subject to state sales tax and others are not. An Internet sales tax could generate an estimated $7.8 million a year, according to fiscal analysts.

Nice try, but the Supreme Court has ruled that under current law states cannot tax Internet or catalog sales when the merchants have no physical presence in the particular state. The case is is Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 1992. Amazon and other big Internet merchants own zero property in Maryland. (Internet sellers such as Land's End or L.L. Bean, which do have Maryland stores, must collect Maryland sales tax on their Web sales.)

New York, California and other states are trying to get around this by treating independent Amazon affiliates in their states as an Amazon presence, and requiring a tax. (When you buy less-than-mainstream merchandise on Amazon -- say, cookware -- the order often comes from an outside vendor piggybacking on Amazon's software.) Amazon has challenged this in court but is also severing ties with affiliates in California and other states that have made this move. Here is good background from blog.fed.tax.net.

A small state like Maryland probably has few affiliates of Amazon or other Internet sellers, so that route is probably blocked. And an outright attempt to flout the Supreme Court precedent would lead to challenges, bad press and not much revenue. Maryland needs to wait until Congress passes a law requiring Internet merchants to collect and remit sales for customers in every state.