Just in time for the 1998 holiday shopping season, Congress made such a dream come true. The "Internet Tax Freedom Act" bans new state and local taxes on electronic commerce for three years (until October 1, 2001).

Why all the fuss over online sales in the first place? The law's bipartisan sponsors feared tax risks could stifle growth of the Internet as a convenient way for both businesses and consumers to shop. Even President Clinton has repeatedly spoken out against such taxes.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that the USA is home to most prominent online retailers - whose online marketers now reach new international customers virtually without cost. Indeed, the new law specifically favors "global electronic commerce" by "expanding market access opportunities."

But why was yet another tax law necessary in the first place? Consider which state - or country - should be allowed to collect tax on sales conducted entirely online, without any human presence. The home state of the seller? Of the buyer? Of their access providers? Or of the host computer for the web site that makes the sale? All could be different.

Even worse, what if all of those states claim the right to tax? Buyers facing multiple tax bills might quickly abandon the Internet for the comfort of the mall or mail-order catalog. Sellers risking criminal liability for not collecting sales taxes will rethink their websites.

Strangely enough, however, a tax-free cyberworld may not be everyone's desire. In fact, this bill met strong opposition for over one year before passage. Why should anyone object to limiting taxes, however? The proposed law simply says that Internet sales must be taxed the same as any other. If you must pay sales tax when buying from a catalog, you must do so online.

That seems fair, right? Not to the mayors' and governors' groups who strongly opposed the bill. They feared that cities and states won't be able to force distant online sellers to collect and turn in the tax. Of course, buyers must in theory then pay an equal "use tax." But how many of us actually pay small use taxes on untaxed out of state purchases? Even worse, how will the state tax collector ever find out about online sales? It's much harder to track down thousands of http://www.online.merchant.nowhere.com's than L.L.Bean or Land's End.

This law attempts to solve these problems by restricting two tax burdens on online business. Internet-only taxes are outlawed completely for three years, while a newly created commission studies how - and if - worldwide electronic commerce can be taxed at all. The same ban blocks taxing the same online transaction twice, in different states, for example.

The law also stops new taxes on Internet access services. Since many states already collect such taxes, however, access taxes in place remain unaffected. At the last minute, however, protecting e-commerce against burdensome taxes was also drafted to the political campaign to rid the Net of anything "harmful to minors." The new law won't eliminate taxes on sales through sites with unrestricted access to "harmful" material, or through ISP's that don't offer filtering software.

Online sellers and marketers, therefore, must carefully scrutinize the websites where their ads appear. Who can afford to be associated with taxes that could be avoided by dealing with a minor-friendly site?

Despite these special concerns when dealing with "adult" sites, the law's boost to electronic commerce appears clear and inevitable. How many local businesses can match prices with a 24-hour competitor that makes house calls - and is always 6% or 7% cheaper, by law?

We may never be able to buy milk and eggs online. But after three years of tax-free sales, will we window-shop only on a virtual Main Street USA?