Posted on 03/06/2018 2:50:44 PM PST by Kaslin
In fairly short order, the Supreme Court is going to begin hearing arguments in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. This case is being closely watched around the country because of the potential impact it will have on consumers as well as retailers, both traditional and online. The state of South Dakota is asking the Supremes to overrule their 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which held that states could not force online retailers to collect sales tax in other states where the company didn’t have a physical presence.
Now the White House has weighed in on the side of the states. The administration filed a friend of the court brief urging the justices to take a fresh look, placing the current sales situation in context while considering all the changes which have taken place in the retail space over the past 26 years. (Wall Street Journal, subscription required)
The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to expand states’ authority to collect sales tax on internet transactions, joining a chorus of state officials seeking to overrule a 1992 precedent exempting many online retailers from having to add taxes to a consumer’s final price.
In 1992, the justices “did not and could not anticipate the development of modern e-commerce,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a friend-of the-court brief. “In light of internet retailers’ pervasive and continuous virtual presence in the states where their websites are accessible, the states have ample authority to require those retailers to collect state sales taxes owed by their customers.”
South Dakota is leading a charge to overrule 1992 case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, with arguments scheduled next month. Some 35 states and the District of Columbia, as well as organizations representing retailers from booksellers to shopping malls, have filed briefs supporting South Dakota’s position. Catalog mailers and online retailers have opposed the state, arguing that it is too burdensome for many businesses to comply with 50 or more separate state taxing regimes.
The 1992 case held that constitutional provisions assigning Congress authority over interstate commerce prohibited states from requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes without congressional assent. While consumers remain obligated to pay sales tax, few know of this duty and fewer still voluntarily comply, robbing state treasuries of billions of dollars, officials say.
This drags us back into a long-running discussion we’ve had about the Marketplace Fairness Act and whether or not Congress should act on this subject before the courts can get around to it. There are two ways to view this which have always left me a bit conflicted, but it’s not hard to see the merit in each side.
Arguing against any sort of change from the status quo is quick and easy. First of all, most people don’t want to pay even more taxes or to have the cost of all of their online purchases go up. But even more than that, when the courts originally ruled in Quill it was pointed out that the Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. As you should know by now, the interstate commerce clause is probably the most badly abused, archaic clause in our founding documents. It’s the cheap excuse that Congress uses to pass all manner of federal laws, doing verbal backflips to dream up ways to portray any given scenario as having an impact on commerce between the states.
And considering how the Founders actually pictured the country operating (with the various states being highly independent to the point of possibly conducting trade wars against one another), the clause became obsolete almost immediately. But in the era of online sales, this may be that rare unicorn of a case where the interstate commerce clause actually applies.
But we can have some sympathy for the other side of the argument as well. Brick and mortar retailers have a legitimate gripe in saying that their competitors are able to sell cheaper by virtue of being given a free pass in states where a sales tax is charged while they have to impose the tax. It’s also true that consumers are supposed to be paying the tax on such transactions, but basically, nobody does.
Will Trump’s friend of the court brief have any impact on the court’s decision? Color me skeptical. They get piles of those briefs fed to them in every case they hear and even if they bother reading them I highly doubt there’s any critical information within that they didn’t already know if they planned on taking it into account. But it also leaves room for Congress to reconsider the MFA. If Quill is overturned with no legislative action taken, every single retailer, including the smallest, could be hit with this requirement. Intervention by Congress could at least carve out some space for small businesses and start-ups. It’s something to consider anyway.
Nobody argued sales tax when mail order catalogs was the ‘Internet’ of its day................
As you should know by now, the interstate commerce clause is probably the most badly abused, archaic clause in our founding documents. It’s the cheap excuse that Congress uses to pass all manner of federal laws, doing verbal backflips to dream up ways to portray any given scenario as having an impact on commerce between the states.
I have often said that the Interstate Commerce Clause, using their logic, could be used to easily NULLIFY every State Gun Control Law across this country.
Time to start a subscription business providing up to date sales tax information for every zip code in the country that retailers can integrate into their websites to calculate the correct tax. Who wants to join me :)
Yep it’s the same concept, regarding mail orders and internet orders.
This reminds me that some states ask you to pay tax on your out of state mail orders/internet purchases.
How many people actually file a tax return, on which they show they purchased a certain amount from out of state companies?? How would taxing authorities have any clue what you buy online?
I sell on Etsy. Sales tax is now collected from my customers who live in Washington because their state law changed. I live in VA. Thankfully, Esty agreed to hold and pay those taxes to WA otherwise I would need to start filing them. X50 states... every month, I get sales from most of the state’s. Terrible.
Our motto will be “’Cause Interstate Commerce means you have to comply with the Interstate Commerce Clause”
But the state’s didn’t have a deficit like they do now. They need a way to balance the books.
“The 1992 case held that constitutional provisions assigning Congress authority over interstate commerce prohibited states from requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes without congressional assent.”
Obviously, states lack Congressional assent.
Roberts pledged to uphold precedents during his conformation.
The sales tax is called a sales privilege tax.
Obviously, a Floridian needs no privilege from California to mail something to California.
California’s greedy hands should not reach outside of the state.
In 1949, Florida got its own sales tax, of 1%.
Is the education of its children now six times better than in 1950?
“In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), it was held that a business whose only contacts with the taxing state are by mail or by common carrier lacks the “substantial nexus” required under the Dormant Commerce Clause.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
how is it that this president can do,such a great job in some areas and totally mess up in others.?
I can’t imagine having to collect sales tax plus any local options for every state a sale is made in. That would push online prices up and defeat the reason why many shop online.
An idea that has been re-invented many times. It's a very expensive proposition that has been shouldered by many companies who had no choice. Sales tax issues go all the way to cities. I chose my favorite Borders bookstore based on city location in the San Diego county area. The ones in the highest city tax areas closed first.
The states then should be required to compensate the online retailer for the amount of work required to act as their revenue agent. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
The seller will have to file a sales tax return for every state but in many states the actual amount you need to collect on a sale will depend on the city and/or county of the purchaser. It’s insane for a small business.
I think the issue revolves upon when the ownership of the item goes from the seller to the purchaser.
If ownership goes from the seller to purchaser at the shipping point then any sales tax should be collected at the shipping point’s location/state rate. FOB Dock.
If title transfers from seller to purchaser at the purchaser’s location then the sale occurred at the purchaser’s location/state. FOB Destination.
States with high tax rates, notably those with higher population like New York and California, will shed alligator tears over this because most sellers ship from states with low to no state sales tax. Tough doo-doo.
I think that the SC will decide this question along these lines........”Where does ownership title transfer?”
::::I can’t imagine having to collect sales tax plus any local options for every state a sale is made in. That would push online prices up and defeat the reason why many shop online.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Good.
It would need to spit out the sales tax returns too.
States have made tens of billions of dollars off Internet stock gains.
Wow imagine this idea applied to how businesses collect payroll taxes and other taxes for various government programs.
Businesses act as tax collectors for the governments which levy taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.