South Dakota v. Wayfair (Decided June 21, 2018)
Supreme Court grants a field day for state tax policymakers.
States have been trying to get a piece of the $28 billion online retail industry for years. And today, the Supreme Court gave them a major win.
Before today, states were prohibited from collecting tax on many online sales. As long the seller did not have a "physical presence" in the state, the transaction couldn't be taxed. Even when the company delivered massive amounts of goods to consumers in the state.
The "physical presence rule" came out of a 1992 Supreme Court case, Quill v. North Dakota. Quill had interpreted the Constitutional limits of state taxation. At the time, physical presence was a sensible limit to the Justices. But 1992 was a different day than today.
In recognizing the changed nature of commerce since the Internet Revolution, the Supreme Court overruled Quill.
The court said "extensive virtual presence" is sufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.
What happens now?
States likely will begin collecting taxes on many more online transactions - especially those large businesses with "extensive virtual presences." South Dakota's opponents in the case (Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg), for example, will be among them. Of course, that means the company passes the taxes on by charging it to customers.
However, some major online retailers are already paying sales taxes around the nation. Amazon, for example, fought states for years on this issue and finally threw in the towel. Walmart and Target also comply with sales tax requirements for their online orders because they each have a "physical presence" in every state (in case you didn't notice).
On the other side, however, is a major benefit to states. Being able to tap into increased tax revenue, states will gain a significant amount of money to spend on general budget items like public schools, administrative departments and social programs.
The Court's opinion is here.
View recent reports:
Will the Supreme Court make another Second Amendment ruling?
Reviewing the current state of labor unions and worker protections.
Are the 2019 Public Charge Rules valid?
Does the Constitution guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict in state criminal trials?
Is Kansas’s “mens rea” departure from the traditional “insanity” defense constitutional?
Conservative Justices prevail in interpreting the Second Amendment. The ruling determined D.C.’s gun control laws were unconstitutional.
Analyzing the self and “otherness” in general philosophy and in the U.S. Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court power to overrule Congress, which has lasted over two centuries. But ironically, the Court was powerless in resolving the problem at hand.
Courts will not resolve political gerrymandering cases. They are “nonjusticiable.”
Did the federal government violate law when it added a citizenship question to the Census?
Should the Supreme Court overrule longstanding precedent on agency deference?
Can the federal government refuse to trademark “FUCT” or is the mark protected speech despite that it may be scandalous or vulgar?
Is the cross shaped war memorial on public property Constitutional?
The Virginia House cannot appeal the redistricting order on behalf of the whole state.
The United States and Alabama can prosecute Gamble for the same act.