Module 9: Trust & Remittance — Administrative Burden
1. Role in the roadmap
The published master lists Module 8 (marketplace) then Module 10 (audits). Module 9 covers trust in the remittance chain and the administrative cost of moving money from transaction to General Fund—the “plumbing” problem beneath headline nexus rules.
2. Remittance burden: who carries the weight
- Vendors and facilitators file returns, allocate local tax, reconcile exemption certificates, and absorb vendor discount caps (see Module 3 H.B. 96).
- Purchasers owe use tax when vendors fail—Module 5—but individual compliance is minimal; businesses bear disproportionate filing load.
- Platforms must integrate rate tables, product tax categories, and refunds—each integration point is a failure point.
3. Trust erosion
When POS systems show the wrong rate, when exemption logic is opaque, or when refund timing doesn’t match cash collection, taxpayers and local governments lose confidence that the same rules apply everywhere. Trust is a precondition for voluntary compliance and for political acceptance of rate or base changes.
4. Link to Module 10
Remittance friction does not create real-time visibility (that is the audit gap). It prepares the case for Module 11–12: if remittance is heavy and still inaccurate, reactive enforcement cannot close the $24B problem.
Outcomes (to expand)
- [ ] Return frequency and cash-flow stress for small vendors
- [ ] Local tax allocation errors and dispute volume
- [ ] Metrics for “trust in remittance accuracy” by taxpayer segment