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:
Is the government a “person” who can request a “covered business method” patent review?
Are Title VII charge-filing rules “jurisdictional”?
What underlies the demand for cryptocurrencies and how does a decentralized system work?
Are selective abortions that Indiana tried to outlaw a continuation of the late eugenics movement?
Can Bartlett sue the arresting officers for retaliation even if the officers had probable cause to arrest him?
Can Home Depot get the case moved from state court to federal court?
A member of the Crow Tribe of Montana maintains a treaty right to hunt elk in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest.
Drug manufacturers must make a strong showing to prove FDA preemption defeats plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims.
Did Hunt, a relator in a False Claims Act case, file the case on time?
Can iPhone App Store purchasers sue Apple for commission fees charged to app developers?
Did the federal government violate law when it added a citizenship question to the Census?
Can the federal government refuse to trademark “FUCT” or is the mark protected speech despite that it may be scandalous or vulgar?
Bucklew cannot avoid Missouri’s standard execution method because of his medical condition.
Washington cannot apply the state’s fuel tax law to the Yakama Tribe fuel importer because it violates an 1855 treaty.