United States: Illinois Supreme Court Holds Click-Through Nexus Statute Preempted By Internet Tax Freedom Act

On October 18, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court holding that Illinois' click-through nexus law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution due to the federal prohibition against discriminatory state taxes on electronic commerce contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act ("ITFA").1 The decision upheld the circuit court's granting of summary judgment in the underlying case.2

Background

In 2011, the Illinois legislature enacted click-through nexus legislation (the "Act") requiring certain out-of-state retailers to collect and remit Illinois sales or use tax on items and services sold for use in Illinois through in-state "affiliates." The Act targets out-of-state retailers which enter into agreements with in-state "affiliates" who use Internet links to draw consumers to the retailers' sites in exchange for a fee or commission on any subsequent sales.3 This affiliate relationship is known as "performance marketing." Typically the affiliate refers Illinois customers to the out-of-state retailer through a link on the affiliate's Web site. In effect, the Act only applies in the context of online sales made by Internet vendors lacking a physical presence within the state.

History of Underlying Case

On June 1, 2011, the Performance Marketing Association ("PMA"), a not-for-profit trade association representing the performance marketing industry, filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Revenue in U.S. District Court.4 Soon thereafter, the PMA dismissed the federal lawsuit and filed a new petition in Illinois circuit court on July 27, 2011.5 The PMA claimed that the Act was unlawful on three grounds: (i) the Act violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by imposing a tax on retailers that have no business location, property, employee, or other physical presence in Illinois;6 (ii) the Act violates the Commerce Clause as unduly burdensome to interstate commerce; and (iii) the Act is preempted by the ITFA, which contains a prohibition against a state imposing a "discriminatory tax" on "electronic commerce."

The PMA and the Department each filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted PMA's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Act violated the substantial nexus requirement of the Commerce Clause and was expressly preempted by the ITFA.7 The circuit court did not provide a detailed legal analysis for the decision and did not reach the merits of the PMA's claim that the Act was a burden on interstate commerce. Also, the circuit court noted that the decision was directly appealable to the Illinois Supreme Court because the holding invalidated a state statute.8

The Department subsequently appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment

In affirming the circuit court's decision, the Illinois Supreme Court first addressed the issue of whether the Act is preempted by the ITFA pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.9 The PMA argued that the Act was expressly preempted by the prohibition of any discriminatory tax on electronic commerce contained in the ITFA.10 The ITFA defines a discriminatory tax to include an obligation to collect and remit sales tax on an Internet transaction in a different manner than if the same transaction had occurred as a traditional face-to-face purchase.11 The PMA argued that the Act expanded the definition of retailer and servicemen to require out-of-state Internet retailers entering into affiliate agreements with Illinois parties to unfairly collect sales tax on their transactions. At the same time, out-of-state retailers who entered into affiliate agreements with Illinois parties that advertise in print, television, and other "offline" media would not be obligated to collect use tax on their sales. In short, the Act targets Internet affiliates but ignores affiliate agreements that generate sales through non-electronic means.

The Department conceded that the Act specifically targets online performance marketing contracts. However, it argued that Illinois statutes already impose a use tax collection obligation on "offline" affiliate agreements. The Department referred to provisions of the Use Tax Act that include "offline" performance marketing in the definition of doing business in the state.12 According to the Department, the Use Tax Act provides an equivalent duty to collect tax which is comparable to the duty imposed on Internet affiliates by the Act.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Department's argument, explaining that online marketing is inherently "broadcast" to a worldwide audience and is accessible to anyone, from anywhere in the world. "Offline" marketing, which the Department argues is subject to tax under the Use Tax Act, would only apply to marketing that was directed to consumers located within Illinois. The Act imposes a duty to collect tax on online marketing that is far beyond the scope of what is required under the Use Tax Act. The Court held that this disparity constituted a discriminatory tax that was prohibited by the ITFA.

Alternatively, the Department argued that the Internet links used by the affiliates are active solicitation efforts performed on behalf of the out-of-state retailer. In general, active solicitation activities performed in Illinois by out-of-state retailers obligate the retailers to collect and remit use tax under Illinois law. The Department attempted to extend this definition to click-through advertising to support the claim that in-state affiliates create nexus for out-of-state retailers. The Court rejected this contention, pointing to the fact that affiliates do not receive or transmit orders, process payments, or provide any customer service indicating an active role in the solicitation of sales. As with the first argument, the Court found that Internet marketing with "click-through" links is no different than traditional "offline" marketing.

The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the PMA, finding that the Act imposes a discriminatory tax on electronic commerce contrary to the provisions contained in the ITFA. The Court found that because the Act is in direct conflict with the ITFA, it is expressly preempted and is void and unenforceable. Upon reaching the conclusion on the preemption issue, the Court declined to evaluate the merits of the Commerce Clause arguments.

Dissent

Justice Karmeier filed a dissent, disagreeing with the majority holding on the preemption issue, as well as the unwillingness of the majority to address the Commerce Clause arguments. The dissent noted that the expanded definition contained in the Act does not constitute a new tax. Instead, it shifts the burden of the use tax from the consumer to the vendor.13 Justice Karmeier argued that use tax obligations left to individual consumers are often not remitted and are therefore underreported. Further, the Act creates fairness in the marketplace, wherein out-of-state Internet retailers are obligated to include use tax in the purchase price similar to in-state retailers.

The dissent criticized the decision of the majority failing to address the Commerce Clause arguments. According to the dissent, the majority preemption holding did not indicate that the statute itself is invalid. The only analysis performed by the Court was to determine whether the statute conflicts with federal law. By failing to address the Commerce Clause argument, the actual substance of the Act was not reached.

Further, the dissenting justice explained that the case was before the Illinois Supreme Court only because the circuit court held the Act was facially invalid based on the Commerce Clause argument. If the circuit court had only reached a decision based on the preemption argument, the case would have proceeded through the normal appellate process. The dissent noted the "ponderous" result of the Court hearing a case on direct review because of a certain claim, then failing to consider the merits of that claim.14

The dissent discussed that the ITFA is scheduled to sunset on November 1, 2014. Once the federal statute expires, the dissent pointed out that the Act will be revived without any further action by the legislature. At that time, the Commerce Clause argument will still be in dispute. Without the issue being resolved, the same issue could likely be back before the court for determination.

Justice Karmeier further mentioned developments in other states regarding similar claims and considered how the Illinois case analysis compares. The dissent concluded that the Act regulates an activity with substantial nexus to Illinois and, therefore, PMA's Commerce Clause arguments are invalid.

Commentary

Despite the clear victory for online retailers and the performance marketing and advertising industries, the Illinois Supreme Court left much unresolved. The decision was made without considering the actual substance of the Act. Without a clear holding on the Commerce Clause issues, the future of click-through and affiliate nexus in Illinois remains unclear. Regardless of this uncertainty, however, until the expiration of the ITFA or successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Illinois Supreme Court decision suspends the click-through nexus statute rendering the law void and unenforceable.

As mentioned in the dissent, one significant area of concern surrounds the ITFA sunset on November 1, 2014. Congress has previously extended the sunset date for the ITFA, and legislation to permanently extend the ITFA is currently being considered.15 The majority held that the Act is preempted by the conflicting ITFA, and is, therefore, invalid as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. If the ITFA is not extended by Congress, the Act will no longer be preempted by a federal law, and will, therefore, again become effective. If the Court had ruled on the Commerce Clause issue, then it is likely that a stronger conclusion could have been reached with a more permanent result. As it stands, the same Commerce Clause questions may remain unresolved once the ITFA expires, resulting in additional litigation to resolve the uncertainty.

An additional legislative option to remedy the click-through nexus provisions to avoid the preemption issues with the ITFA would be to simply rewrite the Act. Other states have taken similar action to successfully avoid preemption issues.16 In essence, the statute could be amended so that any affiliate sales, not just sales generated by Internet links, create nexus and trigger use tax collection responsibility. Thus, the prohibition against electronic commerce discrimination contained in the ITFA could be avoided.

Many of these issues were explored when New York considered a similar constitutional challenge to click-through nexus legislation.17 In contrast to the New York legislation, the Illinois statute lacks a rebuttable presumption of nexus. A rebuttable presumption gives a taxpayer the ability to present evidence showing that affiliates do not engage in activities creating nexus and avoids potentially violating the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.18 In order to avoid additional Constitutional challenges, the Illinois legislature could consider adding a rebuttable presumption to the current statutory scheme.

By not reaching the merits of the Commerce Clause argument, the Illinois Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to put forth Illinois' position in a nationwide discussion regarding the interaction of Internet affiliate tax collection and the Commerce Clause. Given that the issue was ripe and fully briefed, the Court declined to resolve a relevant question of law that may come before the Court in the future. While other states are actively working to resolve these issues, the Illinois Supreme Court decided to postpone resolution. It will be interesting to see whether the split between the New York and Illinois courts with respect to the constitutionality of click-through nexus laws, as well as the continued activities in this area by state legislatures, is addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Footnotes

1 Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, Illinois Supreme Court, Doc. No. 114496, Oct. 18, 2013.

2 For further discussion of the circuit court decision, see GT SALT Alert: Illinois Circuit Court Holds Click-Through Nexus Statute Is Unconstitutional and Violates Internet Tax Freedom Act.

3 P.A. 96-1544 (H.B. 3659), Laws 2011; 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 105/2.

4 Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 11-CV-3690, complaint filed on June 1, 2011.

5 Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, No. 2011 CH 26333, complaint filed on July 27, 2011.

6 These factors are commonly considered to be factors that create substantial nexus with a state. See Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

7 Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, No. 2011 CH 26333, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment entered on May 7, 2012.

8"Appeals from final judgments of circuit courts shall be taken directly to the [Illinois] Supreme Court (1) in cases in which a statute of the United States or of this state has been held invalid, and (2) in proceedings commenced under Rule 21(c)(d) of this court. For purposes of this rule, invalidity does not include a determination that a statute of this state is preempted by federal law." Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(a).

9 The U.S. Constitution provides that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." See U.S. Const., art. VI, § 2. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

10 "Electronic commerce" means "any transaction conducted over the Internet or through Internet access, comprising the sale, lease, license, offer, or delivery of property, goods, services, or information, whether or not for consideration, and includes the provision of Internet access." 47 U.S.C. § 151 at § 1105(3).

11 A discriminatory tax "imposes an obligation to collect or pay the tax on a different person or entity than in the case of transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means." 47 U.S.C. § 151 at § 1105(2)(A)(iii).

12 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 105/2(3).

13 See 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 105/10; 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 110/10.

14 Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(a) provides for direct review by the Illinois Supreme Court of circuit court cases where an Illinois state statute is held to be invalid. By granting plaintiff's summary judgment on the Commerce Clause claim, the circuit court held that the Act was invalid, thus, allowing direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Once before the Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause claim was not considered.

15 H.R. 3086, introduced Sep. 12, 2013.

16 New York successfully avoided the preemption issue by enacting a click-through nexus statute that states that affiliates can create nexus when referrals are made "by link on an internet website or otherwise." See N.Y. TAX LAW § 1101(b)(8)(vi). This effectively avoids the disparate treatment between electronic and "offline" commerce.

17 See Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 987 N.E.2d 621 (N.Y. 2013). In the New York case, the Court held that affiliates were much more active in soliciting sales from New York residents and, thus, were equivalent to sales agents soliciting sales for the Internet retailer. In addition, the New York statute contained a rebuttable presumption of nexus that is not contained in the Illinois statute. For further discussion of the New York case, see GT SALT Alert: New York State Court of Appeals Holds Click-Through Nexus Statute Is Facially Constitutional.

18 See Amazon.com LLC v. New York Department of Taxation and Finance, 913 N.Y.S.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions