United States: Playing Catch Up: How Will The U.S. Supreme Court View Quill Today?

States seek tax system for the new millennium: Court to hear case in April

Online retail wasn't much of a big deal in 1992. Come to think of it, it wasn't a deal at all. A lot of people were still getting used to email, and Jeff Bezos had just started selling books out of his garage for a small start-up company he called Amazon.com ("Amazon"). Bezos was particularly excited by the growth of internet use and how it could coincide with a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling that exempted mail order companies from collecting sales taxes in states where they lacked a physical presence.

That would be the 1992 Quill v. North Dakota ("Quill")1 decision, which stated that a catalog or online retailer did not have to collect a state's sales tax if the retailer had no physical presence (or nexus) in that state. While this system may have made sense when you were ordering a pocket watch from Sears, Roebuck & Co., times have changed a bit. Quill has become a seminal case for online retailers, not only because it meant they essentially didn't have to pay state and local sales taxes, but also because it allowed them to offer ultra-competitive prices compared to traditional brick-and-mortar stores. It also meant that local governments, which rely heavily on sales taxes, lost enormous amounts of revenue as more and more commerce moved online.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office, which provides nonpartisan reports to Congress, estimated that local governments would have gained between $8.5 billion and $13 billion in 2017 if they could have required remote sellers to collect tax on sales into the state2. Of course, the issue becomes even more precarious as we watch online sellers become some of the most profitable companies on the planet. Traditional sellers can't keep up, and the states are at their wits' end trying to capture sorely needed taxes from the online retail explosion.

Not to be ignored, President Donald Trump has even weighed in, striking a rare blow against business interests when calling out Jeff Bezos and Amazon for avoiding-until recently- its obligation to collect state sales tax3.

Despite longstanding criticism, Amazon made a concerted effort to get out in front of the sales tax issue by collecting tax in all jurisdictions in 2017. At this point, they had built warehouses all over the country, meaning they have a physical presence in many states and would be subject to sales tax. However, Amazon still avoids charging consumers sales tax when they buy products from one of its third-party vendors, which makes up a significant portion of its business. For those items, the company says it's up to the sellers to collect taxes, but many of them don't.

The primary impetus for the Court coming back to this issue is most certainly due to comments made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015 when he stated the following in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl:

"The Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy, and, indeed, in many other societal dimensions...Today, buyers have almost instant access to most retailers via cellphones, tablets and laptops. As a result, a business may be present in a state in a meaningful way without that presence being physical in the traditional sense of the term. Given these changes to technology and consumer sophistication, it is unwise to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court's holding in Quill. A case questionable even when decided, Quill now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier."

He then basically threw down a gauntlet: "The legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill."

Enter South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case where South Dakota is hoping the high court will see that Quill is obsolete in the e-commerce era and will consider freeing state and local governments to collect billions of dollars in sales taxes from online retailers.

And it took you this long, because...?

The physical presence rule is a constitutional debate that has been stewing for decades. While modern discussions on the issue tend to start with Quill, it really started in 1967 with the National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill case4 ("National Bellas Hess"), where the Supreme Court reviewed and rejected an attempt by the State of Illinois to require the National Bellas Hess Company, a mail order company based in Missouri, to collect its use tax. The state statute at issue imposed the tax-collection requirement based solely on that company's solicitation of orders within the state through the use of catalogs or other advertising. The Supreme Court held that the state's requirement was unconstitutional, noting that it had never before authorized the imposition of tax-collection obligations on vendors "who do no more than communicate with customers in the state by mail or common carrier as part of a general interstate business." It "declined to obliterate" that line, and the physical presence rule was born.

By the late 1980s, North Dakota was so frustrated that it modified its law to impose tax collection obligations on retailers, like Quill Corp., who targeted in-state customers through three or more advertisements in a 12-month period. Physical presence didn't matter. That obligation seemed to clearly conflict with National Bellas Hess, but the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the state statute anyway, stating that National Bellas Hess was no longer controlling given the "wholesale changes" in the economy, technology and law that had occurred in the intervening years. Makes sense, right?

Not so fast. While this seemed like an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to nip this growing resentment in the bud when ruling on Quill in 1992, they disagreed and upheld the physical presence rule as a Dormant Commerce Clause – a legal doctrine that prevents states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by Congress. While it's important to note that the Supreme Court at that time did not express much love for the rule, it did feel that upholding it was the best course of action given the principle of stare decisis, and the fact that Congress could always intervene using its affirmative Commerce Clause power. Congress, however, has had a rare fit on non-intervention when it comes to this issue.

This is where we need to start keeping track of our clauses to fully understand Quill, and what is currently being questioned in Wayfair. The Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause, for example, help shape the world of sales taxation today, as do the terms "minimum connection" and "substantial nexus."

  • Due Process Clause: No state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." With respect to state taxation, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to prohibit a state from taxing a corporation unless there is a "minimal connection" between the company and the state in which it operates.
  • Commerce Clause: Authorizes Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States." The Supreme Court has ruled that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from enacting laws that might unduly burden or inhibit the free flow of commerce between the states. In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that the taxpayer must have "substantial nexus" with the taxing state in order for the state to impose its tax on the taxpayer5.

The Supreme Court was very literal in its application of the above constitutional guarantees to retailers such as Quill. When North Dakota attempted to impose upon Quill Corp. the obligation to collect the state's use tax, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that Quill had substantial nexus, and that it had "sufficiently availed itself of the services and benefits of the state by virtue of its business relationship with North Dakota customers." The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower court's ruling, indicating that while Quill had met the minimum connection standard of the Due Process Clause, it had not met the sufficient nexus standard of the Commerce Clause6.

The distinction between the economic and physical presence may be a small, but very important distinction that has cost the state billions of dollars in lost tax collections over the past 25 years. The Court upheld its earlier ruling in National Bellas Hess. The problem being, of course, most e-commerce business does not create a physical presence (or substantial nexus). Therein lies the rub, still, for states attempting to collect taxes from online sellers.

OK, we're here. Now what?

Which brings us to the present day boiling point with South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., where we have the state taking its own respective swing at Quill. In 2016, the South Dakota legislature enacted a statute that imposed tax collection obligations on remote vendors based solely on their economic connections with the state, with a revenue threshold of $100,000 and a transaction threshold of 200. The statute was enacted specifically to get the issue before the Supreme Court, and the litigation progressed quickly. The state admitted that its statute was facially unconstitutional, supported the defendants' motion for summary judgment and requested that the state's high court use its opinion to provoke the Supreme Court to grant cert and overturn Quill.

And who can blame them? We can all probably agree that nobody could have foreseen in 1992 (much less 1967) that online retail sales would produce such behemoths as Amazon, with its incredible financial and cultural impact. We're talking percentage of GDP here. Not to mention altering basic human behavior. But today, well, the numbers speak for themselves.

So, what does a state like South Dakota, that has no income tax and relies heavily on sales tax, do to solve their inability to tax internet sales? Well, don't try asking Congress for help, even though Quill left the door open for them to offer it. Again, it's important to remember that, yes, the Court ruled then that a business must have a physical presence in a state for a state to require it to pay sales tax, but it also allowed Congress to override that decision if it chose to do so in the future. And again, that never happened.

Though, Congress has toyed with the issue of untaxed remote sales for years. The Senate approved the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA) of 2013, which sought to grant states with simplified sales tax laws the right to tax certain remote sales. However, the measure was held in the House Judiciary Committee. Later iterations of the MFA and at least two versions of a similar measure, the Remote Transactions Parity Act, have never made it to the floor of the House. In 2013, when the Supreme Court, without comment, turned away appeals from Amazon and Overstock in their petition against a New York court decision that forced them to remit sales tax, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., who was North Dakota's tax commissioner when the Court issued its 1992 Quill decision, said, "It's past time that we create a federal system to require online retailers to collect and remit sales tax, just like local shops are required to do."

Wait, how much?

If you're wondering why so many people from so many different camps are fighting tooth and nail over this issue, and why it has taken so long to come back to the Court, you have to consider what's at stake. All but five states—Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon—impose sales taxes, meaning South Dakota v. Wayfair is a national issue. Considering the projections for online sales growth over just the next year, it's easy to see why states are becoming more aggressive to get in front of the Court again.

For state governments, online retailers, the U.S. Supreme Court, and all-important online shoppers, there's obviously a lot riding on South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. The bottom line is something has to be done, and fast. Many states, frustrated at being hamstrung by Quill, are currently ignoring that precedent, and absent the Court's action—or legislation from Congress—this could result in a complex and indefensible patchwork of laws that could mangle interstate commerce. Since hearing of Justice Kennedy's opinion, a number of state legislatures have already passed or are considering passing legislation requiring remote vendors to collect sales tax. Examples of broad interpretations of Quill in recent years include some states arguing that internet "cookies" can create a physical-presence nexus, and that the use of intangible property can create the "functional equivalent" of a physical presence.

"Before anything else, preparation is the key to success." -- Alexander Graham Bell

While there seems to be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to deliver much-needed guidance on this issue, tax advisors, CFOs and taxpayers alike will need to stay well aware of how these changes affect their state and local tax structure. For example, a company with extensive national sales could be required to maintain compliance with more than 10,000 tax jurisdictions at the state level, each having a unique statutory scheme. Preparation to accommodate this sharp increase in filings will be necessary to properly process sales transactions and collect the correct amount of tax from customers.

The Court is set to hear arguments on April 17, 2018 in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., with a ruling possibly by the end of its nine-month term in June 2018. There are certainly many good arguments for overturning Quill. Some of the best minds of business, academia and government have said as much. Ultimately, most of those involved realize the time has come to build a rational system for handling multi-jurisdictional tax issues like this one.

How To Prepare For The Ruling

Should the physical presence requirement be re-defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, here are some areas of efficiency that businesses should carefully consider:

  • Navigating the new nexus footprint
  • Flexibility in monitoring taxability of goods and services
  • Adaptability with revenue sourcing, invoicing and appropriate line item billing
  • Keeping up with ever-changing state and local sales and use tax rates
  • Complying with sales and use tax filing responsibilities
  • Record retention requirements associated with online activities


1. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992)

2. "Supreme Court to hear South Dakota sales tax collection case." USA Today-Argus Leader, 12 Jan. 2018, https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/12/supreme-court-hear-south-dakota-sales-tax-collection-case/1029701001/.

3. "Here's the controversial tax practice by Amazon that's got Trump so upset." MSN-CNBC, 29 Mar. 2018, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/heres-the-controversial-tax-practice-by-amazon-thats-got-trump-so-upset

4 . National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967)

5. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 284-85 (1977)

6. Miles, Monika. "Commerce Clause, Due Process and Quill Corp." STS Publishing, LLC, http://www.salestaxsupport.com/sales-tax-information/sales-tax-101/commerce-clause-due-process-and-quill-corp/.

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.

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
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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