Complete Story
06/22/2018
Supreme Court rules states can require online sellers to collect sales tax
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a South Dakota law requiring certain out-of-state retailers, including those that operate remotely online, to collect its sales tax.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court overturned a 1992 court precedent barring states from requiring businesses that have no physical presence in the state to collect their sales taxes.
Delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the physical presence rule in that former case, known as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, is unsound and incorrect.
Kennedy said Quill created a tax shelter for businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a state’s consumers — something, he said, that has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
“Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, ‘a business may be present in a state in a meaningful way without’ that presence ‘being physical in the traditional sense of the term,” he said.
“A virtual showroom can show far more inventory, in far more detail, and with greater opportunities for consumer and seller interaction than might be possible for local stores.”
The case centered on South Dakota's 2016 law that requires out-of-state online sellers to collect the state’s sales taxes if the companies have more than $100,000 in annual sales of products to South Dakota residents or more than 200 separate transactions for the delivery of good and services to state residents.
Major online retailers Wayfair Inc., Overstock.com and Newegg Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the law after South Dakota asked a court to force the retailers to register for licenses to collect and remit sales tax.
The retailers argued that overturning the ruling would cause chaos for businesses as thousands of different tax jurisdictions passed their own online sales tax laws.
The state, however, argued Quill was problematic because it put brick-and-mortar businesses at a disadvantage compared to online businesses and cost states valuable tax revenue.
Kennedy agreed. He said the Commerce Clause of the Constitution was intended to put businesses on an even playing field and the rule in Quill undermined that effort.
“Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate business with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to remote sellers,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the court’s ruling.
Roberts said in his dissent, which the other justices joined, that e-commerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of the national economy against the backdrop of established rules, including the physical presence rule.
