United States: Wayfair, You Got What States Need

Possible alternatives for resolution on state sales and use tax nexus

On April 17, 2018 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. to consider whether the Court should overturn the dormant Commerce Clause holding of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992).1

The Justices focused on three major issues during oral argument including: (1) retroactivity, (2) how much contact is necessary to justify placing the obligation of collecting and remitting state sales tax on retailers, and (3) the concern that Congress, and not the judiciary, is the proper government branch to address this issue.

South Dakota argued that Quill results in (1) a large loss of sales tax revenue from online retailers who lack physical presence within the state, and (2) small businesses within the state, the local brick and mortar businesses, "being harmed because of the un-level playing field created by Quill, where out-of-state remote sellers are given a price advantage."2

The Court may of course uphold or overturn Quill in its entirety, but we note it may take an intermediary approach such as limiting any new rule to future application (i.e., retroactive application). While the Court could try to throw the issue back to Congress, one could wonder whether this is an indirect overruling of Quill and reversion to the earlier pre Quill tax regimes.3 The Court hopefully, keeps its opinion limited as Quill is guiding precedent in constitutional jurisdictional issues more broadly and is not merely a "tax" case.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)

Quill, a 1992 Supreme Court decision, provides that the Constitution's Commerce Clause prohibits states from requiring out-of-state retailers without a physical presence within the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold or shipped into the state.

Under Quill, a state can only require a vendor to collect the state's sales tax if the vendor has some physical presence within its boundaries. However, the world of commerce has changed significantly since the Supreme Court expressed concern about the effect of taxation on the mail order industry a quarter century ago. The Quill Court did not foresee the meteoric rise of online retail and e-commerce in the age of millennials and Gen. Z. E-commerce is now approximately 9% of the market and as estimated in the South Dakota's brief, the states will lose approximately US$33.9 billion in tax revenue in 2018, though it should be noted that the figure is hotly debated.4

Since Quill, states have attempted to chip away the Court's decision, employing "aggressive moves to bring taxation within Quill in some way."5 Recently, Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, invited states to issue new challenges to Quill by questioning whether the physical presence requirement of Quill has been rendered obsolete by the Internet's far reaching systematic and structural changes to the economy.6

In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law directly challenging Quill by requiring out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax if they sell over US$100,000 of goods or engage in 200 or more separate transactions within a year.7 The law applies to all retailers, including those that do not have a physical presence in the state. The South Dakota law seeks to subject out-of-state sellers to sales tax liability based on an economic presence within the state rather than the physical presence required by Quill.

Retroactivity

During the oral argument, it appeared as if the issue of primary importance to the Supreme Court Justices was the retroactivity of a potential decision overturning Quill. Justice Sotomayor quickly raised concerns that the "many unanswered questions that overturning precedents will create a massive amount of lawsuits."8 One such unanswered question is what retroactive liability sellers may have if the court overturns the physical presence requirement. While South Dakota has specifically ruled out retroactivity in its 2016 legislation, other states could potentially seek retroactive liability. South Dakota provided that "when it comes to retroactivity, the states don't want to address this [issue] retroactively...in the briefing, 38 other states have indicated their laws would prevent retroactivity."9

Minimum contacts

The Justices were also concerned about the level of contact a seller would need in order for a state to impose an obligation to collect and remit sales tax, and the standard to review such cases.10 South Dakota indicated that under SDCL § 10-64-2, a single sale was enough to trigger such tax obligations and encouraged the Justices to use the doctrines defined by Complete Auto when it comes to tax assessment: to look for discrimination, apportionment issues, and substantial nexus.11

In particular, Chief Justice Roberts asked the US Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart if, as a constitutional matter, there should be a minimum number of sales before a business is subject to the burdens of collecting sales tax for a state's taxing authority.12 Deputy Solicitor Stewart, arguing on behalf of the United States and in support of South Dakota, explained that "there is no constitutional minimum."13 Specifically, if there is "an out of state retailer who is deliberately selling a particular physical good within the state, shipping the good into the state for delivery to the customer and transfer of title, that is a sufficient basis for subjecting that retailer to the tax collection obligation in the same way that if that single good turned out to be defective, the retailer could be subject to regulatory burdens imposed by the state."14

Justice Ginsburg followed Stewart's response by asking "isn't that the very kind of question that Congress would be equipped to deal with, establishing a minimum?"15

Congressional solution

The Justices repeatedly raised the issue of a Congressional solution during the course of oral argument. For example, Justice Alito posed the following question to South Dakota Attorney General Jackley: "if there are two options, let's say option A is to eliminate Quill and states can do whatever they want with respect to retroactive liability and with respect to the minimum number of sales that are required in the state in order for the sales to be taxed, and option B is a Congressional scheme that deals with all of these problems. If those are the only two options, which is preferable?"16

Jackley responded that option A was better because "Congress has had 26 years to address this issue. And it's not Congress but it's this court's decision, that is striking down our state statutes."17 Justice Kagan responded that Jackley's answer "gives us pause because Congress could have addressed the issue and Congress chose not to."18 Further, it is clear that Congress has been aware of this "very prominent issue" for years and has chosen not to do something about that." As such, the question becomes whether the fact that Congress is aware of the issue and yet has chosen not to act "makes the state's bar higher to surmount."19

Jackley replied that since Quill involved interpretation of a constitutional provision, the court needs to act and opined that although "sometimes the activity of this court will spur Congress to act, in this instance, it hasn't."20 Justice Breyer shot back "no, no, but the word 'constitutional' is not magic. The reason that we say we are more willing to overturn a constitutional case is because Congress can't act. But, here, they can act."21 Justice Breyer further stated that "You are 50 states, if you do not have the power to get Congress to do something, I don't know who would."22

Justice Ginsburg stepped in and noted that "Quill was this Court's decision and if time has, and changing conditions, have rendered it obsolete, why should the Court which created the doctrine say, well, we'll let Congress fix up what turns out to be our obsolete precedent."23 Jackley took the argument a step further by suggesting that "Congress doesn't have an incentive in this instance to take action in something that could be perceived as a tax when yet they don't get the opportunity to use the revenue."24

Conclusion

As Justice Sotomayor stated "the problem [is] not Quill but the fact that [the states] don't have a mechanism to collect from consumers?"25 Generally, it is not the merchants who pay the sales tax; it is the consumer. The merchants collect the sales tax for the states. If consumers purchase goods outside of the state or from an online vendor without physical presence in the state, the consumer is obligated to pay use tax. However, it is clear that states are struggling with collection of use taxes on the items purchased out of the state or from online retailers without a physical presence in the state. States have yet to "find a way to collect from [consumers]."26

It appears as if the Court has before it, four options:

  • first, uphold the decision in Quill;
  • second, uphold Quill but request Congress to act;
  • third, overturn Quill in its entirety; or
  • fourth, overturn Quill but limit retroactivity.

Uphold Quill Entirely.

First, if the Court upholds Quill, the current rule requiring vendors to have some physical presence within a state in order to establish sufficient nexus for a state to require such vendor to collect sales tax will stand. Vendors such as Wayfair or Newegg will not be required to collect sales tax in most states. However, as Chief Justice Robert points out, the "bigger e-commerce companies find themselves with physical presence in all 50 states." Thanks to Amazon Prime's two day shipping, Amazon's fulfillment centers are located in almost all 50 states, and thus Amazon is required to (and does) collect sales tax in those states. States will also likely continue to develop and employ work-arounds to bring in more [sales tax revenue].27

Uphold Quill But Suggest Congress Act.

Second, if the Court upholds Quill but requests Congress to act it is unclear what may occur. In an amicus brief submitted by Senators Heitkamp, Alexander, Durbin, and Enzi, the Senators argued that Congress is fully prepared to act if Quill is overturned and various state and local tax systems impose a significant burden on interstate commerce. The Senators provided that Congress is the appropriate source of relief as it has the means to collect evidence and craft narrow solutions.28 The Senators claimed that "once freed from the shackles of Quill, Congress is fully prepared to step in when needed" and "broadly restore the power of the states to collect use taxes from out-of-state sellers." However, the Court has suggested that Congress act in prior state sales and use tax cases, including Quill, and Congress has yet to act in the quarter century since Quill was decided.29

Overturn Quill Entirely.

Third, if the Court decides to overturn Quill in its entirety, the states argue that the new standard under which sales taxes should be determined is a balancing test as established under Pike v. Bruce Church.30 Pike stands for the proposition that where a statute regulates even handedly to effectuate a legitimate public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. The extent of the burden that will be tolerated depends on the nature of the local interest involved, and whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Such a balancing test is rather vague and will likely favor the states and their interests. Further, not all of the states have agreed to limit such a decision on a prospective basis. Some states may attempt to require vendors to collect and turn over sales tax revenue retroactively. It is unclear if such state action would be able reach back to 1992 when Quill was first decided. Therefore, if Quill is completely overturned and the Pike balancing test becomes the new standard, it is likely that a new wave of litigation will begin to determine the limits of state action.

Overturn Quill But Limit Retroactivity.

Fourth, if the Court decides to overturn Quill but limits the application of the holding of the Wayfair case prospectively, then states will likely still attempt to apply the Pike balancing test to determine the constitutionality of their sales tax statutes. While this option is unlikely as it would arguably be an instance of judicial legislation, given the issue of vagueness and lack of certainty discussed above, further litigation will likely arise in an attempt to determine the application and limits of the Pike balancing test.

After an hour of oral arguments, a number of the Justices appeared to be concerned about the potential fallout of a decision overruling Quill and the physical presence requirement. The oral argument seemed to raise more questions than answers about whether such a ruling will upset the settled expectations of businesses across the country and open the floodgates of sales and use tax litigation. An opinion is expected likely on June 28.

Footnotes

1 South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

2 Transcript of Oral Argument at 3, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

3 National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967).

4 Brief for the Petitioner at 35, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

5 Transcription of Oral Argument at 14, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018); See also COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5), Colorado's reporting statue, which requires internet retailers to either report all sales made to the state's residents or to collect the tax.

Even more recently, some states have started to require online marketplaces like Amazon, Ebay, and Etsy to collect tax on behalf of the smaller vendors who use those platforms to sell their own goods. See JONATHAN BERR, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR AMAZON SELLERS SALES TAXES? (Oct. 31, 2017). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-responsible-for-amazon-sellers-sales-taxes/. Additionally, Amazon announced in January 2018 that it would comply with a subpoena to turn over third party vendor information to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. See RYAN PRETE, AMAZON GATHERING MARKETPLACE SELLER DATA FOR MASSACHUSETTS (Jan. 23, 2018). https://www.bna.com/amazon-gathering-marketplace-n73014474546/.

6 Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1135 (2015).

7 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 10-64-2 (2016). (limiting the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota of over US$100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.

8 Transcript of Oral Argument at 4, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

9 Id. at 16.

10 Id. at 4, 26.

11 Id. at 5. See also Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (The Pike Balancing test requires a court to determine whether state regulations effectuating a "legitimate local public interest" impose a burden on interstate commerce that is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." The "extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities").

12 Transcript of Oral Argument at 21, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

13 Id. at 22.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 23.

16 Id. at 10.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 11.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 12.

22 Id. at 13.

23 Id. at 11.

24 Id. at 13.

25 Id. at 3.

26 Id. at 4.

27 Id. at 17.

28 Brief of United States Senators, et al Supporting Petitioner South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018). (Heidi Heitkamp is a United States Senator from North Dakota, Lamar Alexander is a United States Senator from Tennessee, Richard Durbin is a United States Senator from Illinois, and Michael Enzi is a United States Senator from Wyoming).

29 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 318 (1992). ("No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions... Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes").

30 Reply of Petitioner South Dakota, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

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
Ropes & Gray LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ropes & Gray LLP
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