{"id":410,"date":"2018-01-24T12:33:26","date_gmt":"2018-01-24T18:33:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=410"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:43:49","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:43:49","slug":"south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc-supreme-court-will-decide-the-fate-of-online-sales-tax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc-supreme-court-will-decide-the-fate-of-online-sales-tax\/","title":{"rendered":"South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.<\/i>: Supreme Court Will Decide the Fate of Online Sales Tax"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image by Scott Lewis<\/a>, CC BY 2.0<\/a> License.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc<\/em>.<\/a> (S.D. 2017), a case that has the possibility to fundamentally change the circumstances in which online sales taxes must be collected, not only in South Dakota but nationwide. In Wayfair<\/em>, South Dakota seeks to overturn\u00a0Quill v. North Dakota<\/a>,\u00a0a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that South Dakota calls outdated. Quill<\/em>\u00a0involved an out-of-state office supply retailer that sold floppy disks without charging sales tax. The Quill<\/em>\u00a0Court held\u00a0that a state cannot require a retailer to collect sales tax from a customer unless that retailer has a physical presence in the state. The state of South Dakota argues that the reasoning and logic used in Quill <\/em>has largely gone the way of the floppy disk.<\/p>\n

In Quill<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that under the Commerce Clause<\/a>, the existence of customers in a state alone did not create the sufficient nexus for North Dakota to impose a sales tax. Instead, a taxpayer must have a physical presence (e.g., offices, branches, warehouses, employees) in a state to require collection of sales tax for purchases made by in-state customers. This reasoning was at least partially based on the fact that in 1992, there were over 6,000 separate sales and use tax jurisdictions in the U.S. and to impose a sales tax collection obligation on a remote seller would be far too much of a burden<\/a>. The Supreme Court held that any change to such a scheme was a task for Congress<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, in a 2015 case involving a similar issue, Justice Kennedy penned a concurrence stating that the Court should reevaluate Quill<\/em> in light of \u201cchanges in technology and consumer sophistication<\/a>.\u201d As a direct response to Kennedy\u2019s concurrence and as a direct challenge to the precedent set in Quill<\/em>, South Dakota passed a law requiring the collection of sales tax from certain remote sellers and brought suit against retailers who did not comply. Consequently, Wayfair, Inc., an online furniture retailer, along with other similarly-situated online retailers, challenged the statute as unconstitutional in light of Q<\/em>uill<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Ruling in favor of South Dakota would require the Supreme Court to explicitly overturn the Quill <\/em>ruling, a seemingly tough ask. However, in addition to Justice Kennedy, then-Federal Appellate Judge Gorsuch stated in Direct Marketing Associationn v. Brohl\u00a0<\/em>that the Quill <\/em>decision had an \u201cexpiration date\u201d and that it seemed \u201cdeliberately designed to . . . wash away with the tides of time.\u201d<\/a> Thus, there seem to be at least two Justices strongly in favor of South Dakota\u2019s argument. However, the direction in which the remaining votes will fall seems largely up for debate and will be something to watch closely in the coming months.<\/p>\n

The outcome of Wayfair <\/em>will have tremendous ramifications for all online retailers, as well as all consumers who shop online. While certain online retailers, like Amazon, have individually made the decision to collect sales taxes in all states, the majority do not currently collect sales taxes in jurisdictions in which they have no physical presence. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated in a November report that states and municipalities could gain between $8 billion and $13 billion in annual revenue<\/a> if they could require online retailers to collect sales tax. A ruling in favor of South Dakota would allow states to tap this currently inaccessible, and ever-growing, source of potential revenue. Additionally, traditional brick-and-mortar retailers argue that this would help even the playing field between them and online retailers, as it would require both types of businesses to levy sales taxes on customers.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral argument in Wayfair <\/em>in April.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (S.D. 2017), a case that has the possibility to fundamentally change the circumstances in which online sales taxes must be collected, not only in South Dakota but nationwide. In Wayfair, South Dakota seeks to overturn\u00a0Quill v. North Dakota,\u00a0a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that South Dakota calls outdated. Quill\u00a0involved an out-of-state office supply retailer that sold floppy disks without charging sales tax. The Quill\u00a0Court held\u00a0that a state…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"BLOG: \"*South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.*: Supreme Court Will Decide the Fate of Online Sales Tax\" by Lisa Gunter, discussing the relevance of *Quill*'s physical presence test for tax jurisdiction.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-board-member-contribution"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-6C","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":596,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/collins-v-virginia-where-categorical-rules-collide\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":0},"title":"Collins v. Virginia: Where Categorical Rules Collide","author":"John Leon","date":"February 23, 2018","format":"image","excerpt":"In Collins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court will decide what happens when two nearly categorical rules come into conflict: the ability of law enforcement to search your automobile based on probable cause alone, and the right to be free from searches of your home and its curtilage absent a warrant.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/board-member-contribution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/11999026814_5f0743d7f4_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/11999026814_5f0743d7f4_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/11999026814_5f0743d7f4_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":90,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/the-u-s-supreme-court-considers-class-action-waivers-in-employment-arbitration-agreements\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":1},"title":"The U.S. Supreme Court Considers Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements","author":"Lois Ahn","date":"November 1, 2017","format":"image","excerpt":"On Monday, October 2, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard consolidated oral argument in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285, Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 16-300, and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-307, considering the validity of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. This\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/board-member-contribution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/4122207981_8fc18be3c7_b-1024x940.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/4122207981_8fc18be3c7_b-1024x940.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/4122207981_8fc18be3c7_b-1024x940.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":801,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/from-somers-to-winter-chilling-internal-whistleblowing-in-private-companies\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":2},"title":"From Somers to Winter: Chilling Internal Whistleblowing in Private Companies","author":"Timothy Wilson","date":"April 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion for Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers\u2014a landmark decision denying Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protection for internal whistleblowers in private companies. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, intending to \u201cpromote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/board-member-contribution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/2484507721_1ac6a976eb_b-1024x682.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":58,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/bipa-and-its-federal-problems\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":3},"title":"BIPA and Its Federal Problems","author":"Alexander Ogren","date":"November 8, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"It's not fun to have your credit card or identity stolen. It takes time, money, and mental energy to right yourself. Now, instead of just using cards as the gatekeepers, many companies are using customers\u2019 biometric information, such as fingerprints and facial geometry scans,\u00a0to\u00a0control access to private information. But unlike\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/board-member-contribution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/4599271172_8d08e52340_b-1024x685.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1404,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/south-dakotas-covid-19-response-is-a-battleground-for-tribal-sovereignty\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":4},"title":"South Dakota\u2019s COVID-19 Response is a Battleground for Tribal Sovereignty","author":"Anastasia O'Hara","date":"May 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In a May 5 post Assistant Attorney General for the Navajo Nation Department of Justice Paul Spruhan argued that Indian tribes should have authority to restrict movement through their territories in order to stem the tide of the COVID-19 epidemic. Those very principles are now being put to the test\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Constitutional Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Constitutional Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/covid-19\/constitutional-issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2475,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/religious-practice-the-pandemic-and-the-us-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":410,"position":5},"title":"Religious Practice, the Pandemic, and the US Supreme Court","author":"Alexandros Kyriakidis","date":"April 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Introduction In a 5\u20134 vote on November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, granting injunctive relief (pending appeal) to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, two synagogues, and other individuals (\u201capplicants\u201d) against Executive Order 202.68. The Order, issued\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/covid-19\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}