Joe Bishop-Henchman: Difference between revisions

'''Joseph "Joe" Bishop-Henchman''' is a lawyer and policy analyst who has lived in Washington, D.C. after moving from California in 2004. He is an At-Large Member of the [[Libertarian National Committee]].<ref>https://www.facebook.com/pg/jbhenchman/about/</ref>

Professionally, Joe started his fourteen year career with the Tax Foundation, America's leading independent tax policy nonprofit<ref>https://taxfoundation.org/about-us/</ref>, in 2005 as a Law Clerk. During his career with the Tax Foundation, he was promoted to Tax Counsel, Director of State Projects, Vice President of Legal & State Projects, and finally to Executive Vice President in 2017<ref>https://www.linkedin.com/in/joehenchman/</ref>. During his career, he testified and wrote extensively about tax issues at all levels of jurisdiction<ref>https://taxfoundation.org/by/joseph-henchman</ref>.

In 2018, he submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Tax Foundation<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-494/37597/20180305130816353_17-494 Tax Foundation amicus South Dakota v Wayfair.pdf</ref> to the Supreme Court regarding ''South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.'', a case which ultimately ruled that states could charge sales taxes on out-of-state purchases<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.</ref>. Prior to ''South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.'', states had to demonstrate that a company was physically present in the state prior to assessing sales taxes against a company, per ''Quill Corp. v. North Dakota''<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota</ref>. That, however, led several states to define "physically present" incredibly strictly (Massachusetts, for example, defined "physically present" to include the storage of cookies within Massachusetts residents' computers); additionally, ''Quill Corp. v. North Dakota'' did not exempt business or income taxes. Additionally, several states passed legislation expressly designed to challenge ''Quill Corp. v. North Dakota''. His brief, which argued against overly broad definitions of "physically present," was ultimately cited twice in the majority opinion<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf</ref>.