It sounds like one of those crazy rumors you get in an e-mail from a friend: "Did you hear? They're going to tax the Internet!" Only this time, it's true.

The days of tax-free shopping are quickly drawing to a close for all except those willing to drive to places like Delaware or Oregon. A two-front assault on Web shoppers is in full force — Congress is considering legislation that would pave the way for states to force sales tax on point-and-click shoppers, and Amazon.com is making numerous one-off deals with individual states, where it will be collecting taxes no matter what Congress does. Together, these two developments make an Internet sales tax all but inevitable.

For years, brick-and-mortar stores were at an incredible disadvantage to online retailers that could offer tax-free shopping. If you are a fair-minded person, it's hard to muster an argument that this situation — in which online shoppers enjoy a 5 percent to 10 percent "discount" because they point and click instead of drive or walk — was anything but unfair. 

On the other hand, despite all the word games being played by all the interested parties — the Senate version of the legislation is called the "Marketplace Fairness Act" — there is only one way to describe why your online shopping bill is about to go up: a new tax.

---

The National Conference of State Legislatures says states stand to gain $23 billion in new revenue when online sales tax collection kicks in. That's $23 billion the states weren't collecting before, and $23 billion you weren't paying before. Texas and New York residents will pay about $1.8 billion more; Californians, $4.2 billion. That's real money.

To boil it down, Forrester Research says the average U.S. online shopper will soon spend $1,700 annually — so the changes will cost each one about $125 every year. 

That's $125 in new taxes you’ll be paying. It's $23 billion our state governments will have to spend that they currently don't have. Of course, very few are willing to say the "T" word out loud. George H.W. Bush learned that lesson for every future politician when his "no new taxes" pledge ended up defining his career. So you won’t hear supporters admitting it’s a tax.

"It's not a tax issue. It's a collection issue," David French of the National Retail Federation told me. He's senior vice president of government relations at the federation, which supports the legislation. French is right, strictly speaking. You probably know that consumers who don't pay sales tax when they buy a TV on Amazon.com are supposed to pay a "use tax" later to their own state governments. And you probably also know that almost no one does that. In the sparse data on use tax you'll find, you'll see a 2009 study that shows that 0.3 percent of California residents reported use tax on their income tax filing. Maine, by the way, wins the crown for most honest taxpayers, with 9.8 percent paying use tax that year. 

"I don't want to say they are breaking the law, but I will say they are avoiding application of the law," said French.

So strictly speaking, the states would simply be getting better at collecting that which they are already owed.

"Americans want to see that the taxes that are due are paid before anyone's taxes are increased," French said.

Inevitable
I'll invite you, readers, to come up with your own analogies, but here's mine: If tomorrow, every state in the nation hired a bunch of new state troopers and began giving out speeding tickets to everyone driving 56 mph in a 55-mph zone, I'd call that a new tax. When everyone has done something for years without sanction, it's no longer illegal. Suddenly enforcing an unenforced law is the same as passing a new law; suddenly enforcing an unenforced tax is a new tax.

It's a testament to our tortured relationship with governing that such a straightforward debate leads to such intense obfuscation. One Net sales tax supporter I spoke with on background started to say, "People agree that everyone should pay their fair share," but then caught himself, fearing he had just made an enormous verbal gaffe. Talking about "fair share" triggers an entirely different debate, he feared. One reason the U.S. is floundering is our inability to even speak clearly to one another, so laced with vitriol is our marketplace of ideas.

So I'll speak plainly: It's a new tax — you'll be paying more to the government than you do today — unless governors who institute the tax agree to cut some other tax by an equal amount. Perhaps they could lower the overall sales tax rate by a fraction of a percentage point so the Internet sales tax is really a neutral event on consumers? Unless your state does something like that, don't let your politicians get away with campaign claims that taxes haven't been raised.

The real question, of course, isn't about the word "tax." The real question is: Is an Internet sales tax fair? On that issue, there's just no argument. If there's a sales tax, there's no reason online shoppers should be exempt.

"If it were up to retailers, we would abolish sales tax," French said. But since it has to be collected, it should be applied equally to all retailers, he argues. The legislation "corrects a discriminatory treatment of some retailers over others."

The federal Net sales tax law has gained a lot of momentum. At a Senate hearing Wednesday and a House hearing last month, there was surprisingly little pushback. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., leads the opposition and wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday making the federalism case — he argued that e-commerce firms in California shouldn't have to obey out-of-state laws. The argument rings pretty hollow in our ever-connected world. 

Meanwhile, even some Republicans with sterling conservative reputations — like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — have come out in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Still, it almost certainly won't pass during this election season. There are only a couple of days of legislating remaining before Congress enters full-time campaign mode, and I promise that no one will campaign on an Internet sales tax platform. 

No matter. Amazon is taking all the anxiety out of the political conversation, anyway. It is slowly adding sales taxes to shoppers' purchases around the country — Texans just started paying when they check out at Amazon.com; in September, California residents will, too. (Amazon, as explained in detail here, is willing to give up its sales tax advantage because it plans to build distribution centers around the country in an effort to offer same-day shipping and slay brick and mortar shoppers that way.) 

Ten states in all will be taxed by next year. By then, so much of America will be used to paying sales at the world's largest Internet retailer that it will hard to muster opposition to a federal Internet sales tax law. And French believes both Mitt Romney, a former governor, and Barack Obama would sign a law passed by Congress.

In other words, it seems inevitable: You're going to pay more to shop online. If you don't like it, don't fight the Internet sales tax – fight your state's sales tax policies. An Internet sales tax is only fair.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

April 15 can be a day of fear, loathing or even downright panic – and that can work to great advantage for companies anxious to separate people from their money. While confused consumers are profitable consumers, frightened consumers are a gold mine.

That's why, as tax day approaches, you are hearing seemingly nonstop advertisements for companies that claim magical powers to wipe away tax debt.  The ads bear a striking resemblance to those credit card debt settlement companies I've written about, but there's this extra punch to their offers: While credit card firms can be intimidating, most Americans are terrified of the IRS.

That's why promises to "end the nightmare" and erase debt for "pennies on the dollar" can be quite persuasive.

---

As with many unscrupulous offers, the reason this one is so pervasive is because there is a grain of truth to the claims. Yes, in extreme circumstances, the IRS will settle old debts for a tiny percentage of the outstanding balance. But in most of those cases, the consumer is either near death or completely unemployable and without any valuable assets.

Instead of describing these long odds, many tax debt settlement companies sweet talk clients. Then they take large up-front payments -- prices start at $3,000 and climb fast from there – but do little or nothing to help with the tax problem, according to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

"These companies help virtually no one," Madigan said.

Madigan and 17 other state attorneys general  sued tax debt firm J.K. Harris in 2008, accusing it of misleading consumers. The firm -- one of several tax debt firms to be hit with class-action lawsuits -- paid $1.5 million to settle the case but admitted no wrongdoing.

Firms often advertise that they have local offices staffed with former IRS employees, which is usually quite a stretch of truth, she said.

"Maybe they'll have one former IRS person, but most (employees) don't have that experience," she said.  And many of the local offices are really just mailboxes or empty conference rooms.

Firms that advertise tax debt settlement services are selling a legitimate IRS procedure called an "offer in compromise." If IRS debt collectors determine that the federal government has no chance of collecting on a tax debt, the agency will consider settling for a lesser amount. But the process is long, drawn out and relatively painful. No one can quickly obtain a "pennies on the dollar" settlement with the IRS, Madigan warned.

Back in 2004, the IRS issued a warning about such debt relief claims.

"We are increasingly concerned about unscrupulous promoters charging excessive fees to taxpayers who have no chance of meeting the program's requirements," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson in a statement. "We urge taxpayers not to be duped by high-priced promises."

The agency did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story. But in 2007, it told CNBC that it rejected nearly three-quarters of the 46,000 settlement offers it received.

Larry Lawler is a tax debt expert and executive director of the nonprofit American Society of Tax Problem Solvers, which advocates for tax experts that help consumers with debt. While freely admitting some firms that aggressively advertise are trying to dupe consumers, he says a few bad apples have given his industry "a black eye that is underserved."

Many tax debt agents offer legitimate help to consumers, he said, though that help rarely results in debt forgiveness. He said nine out of 10 of the clients he personally represents must pay their entire tax bill, but he helps them reach an affordable installment plan with the IRS.

Settlement offers are far more lucrative for tax debt solution companies, he said. Even the most complex installment arrangement earns his firm only about $1,700, while tax settlement companies frequently charge $6,000 or more for a settlement that lessens the tax debt, he said. That's often the last few thousand dollars the debtors have.

"So they push for the easy sell and thing they can make a quick buck on," he said. "There are people out there with real, legitimate tax problems ... and there are charlatans out there, raping people, taking their money and not doing the job."

HerbboxIn some cases, tax debt firms don't even bother to fill out the forms correctly. The Internet is awash in complaints from consumers who never talk to the same agent twice or say that settlement firms raided their bank accounts after they signed over a power of attorney.

Many firms also have poor Better Business Bureau ratings.  For example, American Tax Relief – which advertises nationally, currently has an "F" rating from the Los Angeles office of the Better Business Bureau. The firm did not return a phone call requesting comment.

Calling a tax debt assistance company is tempting for many consumers because it is daunting to deal with the IRS, Madigan said.

"While many people have spoken to credit card companies at some point, most people haven't picked up the phone to call the IRS," she said. "And most believe if you are having a problem with taxes, the best thing you can do is engage an expert. That's what these advertisements are promising people, but not delivering."

Lawler said that despite the mine field of tax settlement firms, consumers often do need professional help to address their tax debt -- and ignoring it simply makes things worse. In an attempt to help consumers find honest help, his agency offers a certification program, though so far only about 100 professionals around the country have completed it.

But he said consumers can spot trouble with relative ease.  Any tax debt agent who suggests during an initial 30-minute conversation that a consumer can submit an offer in compromise is probably selling snake oil, he said.

"You can't tell someone they are a good candidate in an initial meeting, he said. "You have got to do an extensive financial analysis."

That's because the IRS requires documentation of every asset and expense, in great detail.  "I always tell people a consumer can't hire someone to do an offer of compromise," Lawler said. "They must hire you for help finding the best solution to their tax problem, whatever that is. ... The vast majority of cases are not good candidates for an offer in compromise."

Jeffrey Rogyom is a tax lawyer in Maryland who recently penned a top 10 list of ways to spot a potential tax debt scam. Among the red flags on his list:

• The agent never asks why you owe the IRS money.
• They advertise so much you know their name.
• Your first payment "strangely reflects how much cash you have."
• The firm uses a "phantom office."  He recommends Googling the address to see if it's a real office complex or something more suspicious.

"These companies promise you the world, that's how they make their money," he said. "For some people (settlement) is a great option, but many people really need to be told they should file for an installment plan."

The tax debt business, however, is a murky  world, Lawler said. Some clients are more interested in evading taxes that paying their debts, while others cite constitutional arguments for not paying federal income taxes.  If they try to do either, Lawler said, he "shows them the door."  And while "99 percent" of consumers never set out to avoid paying taxes, the spectrum of tax relief clients runs from saints to sinners, making his a complicated business.

"I tell people our clients have not paid their taxes, owe the government a bunch of money, but we love them and we want a bunch more of them," he said.

Lawler said consumers with tax trouble would be better off ignoring the radio advertisements and working with someone they can meet face-to-face.

"You really should go to someone who's local, someone where you  can knock on their door and talk to them, who will answer the phone, who's been in the community a long time," he said.

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.