National Bellas Hess v. Illinois

Last updated
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 23, 1967
Decided May 8, 1967
Full case nameNational Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois
Citations386 U.S. 753 ( more )
87 S. Ct. 1389; 18 L. Ed. 2d 505; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2792
Holding
The Commerce Clause prohibited a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, White
DissentFortas, joined by Black, Douglas
Overruled by
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) (in part), South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)

In National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a mail order reseller was not required to collect sales tax unless it had some physical contact with the state. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

National Bellas Hess was a mail order seller of various consumer products. Its principal place of business was in Missouri. It owned no tangible property in Illinois and had no sales outlets, representatives, telephone listing, or solicitors in that state. It did not advertise there by radio, television, billboards, or newspapers. It mailed catalogues to customers throughout the United States, including Illinois. Orders for merchandise were mailed to appellant's Missouri plant, and goods were sent to customers by mail or common carrier. The state of Illinois attempted to force National Bellas Hess to collect a use tax from its customers.

Ruling

The Commerce Clause prohibits a state from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the state is by common carrier or by mail. [3] The court stated that "the Court has never held that a State may impose the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail." The opinion cited Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland , 347 U.S. 340 (1954)

In 1992, the Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) issued an order overruling part of the case. The court held, "Thus, to the extent that this Court's decisions have indicated that the Clause requires a physical presence in a State, they are overruled." That case slightly distinguished itself from Bellas Hess by ruling that physical presence was not necessary for a state to impose a duty to collect under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, but physical presence was still necessary for a state's use tax on a foreign vendor under the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

The Court stated that in determining whether a state tax falls within the confines of the Due Process Clause, the Court has said that the "simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return."

The Court stated, "In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota declined to follow Bellas Hess because “the tremendous social, economic, commercial, and legal innovations” of the past quarter-century have rendered its holding “obsole[te].” [cite omitted] we must either reverse the State Supreme Court or overrule Bellas Hess. While we agree with much of the state court's reasoning, we take the former course. Quill Corp. v. N. Dakota By & Through Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298, 301-02 (1992).

The entirety of National Bellas Hess was later overruled in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018).

See also

Related Research Articles

The Incoterms or International Commercial Terms are a series of pre-defined commercial terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) relating to international commercial law. Incoterms define the responsibilities of exporters and importers in the arrangement of shipments and the transfer of liability involved at various stages of the transaction. They are widely used in international commercial transactions or procurement processes and their use is encouraged by trade councils, courts and international lawyers. A series of three-letter trade terms related to common contractual sales practices, the Incoterms rules are intended primarily to clearly communicate the tasks, costs, and risks associated with the global or international transportation and delivery of goods. Incoterms inform sales contracts defining respective obligations, costs, and risks involved in the delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer, but they do not themselves conclude a contract, determine the price payable, currency or credit terms, govern contract law or define where title to goods transfers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sales tax</span> Tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services

A sales tax is a tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services. Usually laws allow the seller to collect funds for the tax from the consumer at the point of purchase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State income tax</span> Form of taxation in the United States

In addition to federal income tax collected by the United States, most individual U.S. states collect a state income tax. Some local governments also impose an income tax, often based on state income tax calculations. Forty-two states and many localities in the United States impose an income tax on individuals. Eight states impose no state income tax, and a ninth, New Hampshire, imposes an individual income tax on dividends and interest income but not other forms of income. Forty-seven states and many localities impose a tax on the income of corporations.

A use tax is a type of tax levied in the United States by numerous state governments. It is essentially the same as a sales tax but is applied not where a product or service was sold but where a merchant bought a product or service and then converted it for its own use, without having paid tax when it was initially purchased. Use taxes are functionally equivalent to sales taxes. They are typically levied upon the use, storage, enjoyment, or other consumption in the state of tangible personal property that has not been subjected to a sales tax.

The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act is a United States law authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden, and signed into law as title XI of Pub. L. 105–277 (text)(PDF) on October 21, 1998 by President Bill Clinton in an effort to promote and preserve the commercial, educational, and informational potential of the Internet. The law bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet-only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, and email taxes. It also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sales taxes in the United States</span> Overview of sales taxes in the United States of America

Sales taxes in the United States are taxes placed on the sale or lease of goods and services in the United States. Sales tax is governed at the state level and no national general sales tax exists. 45 states, the District of Columbia, the territories of Puerto Rico, and Guam impose general sales taxes that apply to the sale or lease of most goods and some services, and states also may levy selective sales taxes on the sale or lease of particular goods or services. States may grant local governments the authority to impose additional general or selective sales taxes.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the Constitution.

The Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), first organized in March 2000, is intended to simplify and modernize sales and use tax collection and administration in the United States. It arose in response to efforts by Congress to permanently prohibit states from collecting sales tax on online commerce. Because such a ban would have serious financial consequences for states, the SSTP began as an effort to try to minimize the many differences between the states' sales tax policies and practices. The SSTP was dissolved once the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) became effective on October 1, 2005.

Tax-free shopping (TFS) is the buying of goods in another country or state and obtaining a refund of the sales tax which has been collected by the retailer on those goods. The sales tax may be variously described as a sales tax, goods and services tax (GST), value added tax (VAT), or consumption tax.

Internet tax is a tax on Internet-based services. A number of jurisdictions have introduced an Internet tax and others are considering doing so mainly as a result of successful tax avoidance by multinational corporations that operate within the digital economy. Internet taxes prominently target companies including Facebook, Google, Amazon, Airbnb, Uber.

A franchise tax is a government levy (tax) charged by some US states to certain business organizations such as corporations and partnerships with a nexus in the state. A franchise tax is not based on income. Rather, the typical franchise tax calculation is based on the net worth of or capital held by the entity. The franchise tax effectively charges corporations for the privilege of doing business in the state.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quill Corporation</span> Office supply retailer based in Lincolnshire, Illinois

Quill Corporation is an American office supply retailer, founded in 1956, and headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. It services more than one million small and mid-sized U.S. business customers, with access to over one million assorted products. While over 70% of sales are conducted online, it also employs mail-order and direct sales models. It is considered to be among the largest business-to-business direct markets of office supplies in the United States, but it also sells products in other categories such as technology, cleaning & breakroom supplies, furniture, safety products and professional medical equipment through its Quill Healthcare unit. Quill is owned by Staples, Inc., and is recognized as their most profitable division, accounting for about 25% of the company's net income. Between 1998 and 2009, Quill grew from $500 million in revenues to over $1 billion. It employs approximately 500 people and has twelve distribution centers. The president of the Staples subsidiary is Mark Roszkowski.

Amazon's tax behaviours have been investigated in China, Germany, Poland, Sweden, South Korea, France, Japan, Ireland, Singapore, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, multiple states in the United States, and Portugal. According to a report released by Fair Tax Mark in 2019, Amazon is the best actor of tax avoidance, having paid a 12% effective tax rate between 2010-2018, in contrast with 35% corporate tax rate in the US during the same period. Amazon countered that it had an 24% effective tax rate during the same period.

In Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a mail order reseller was not required to collect a use tax unless it had sufficient contact with the state.

The Main Street Fairness Act was a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives to "promote simplification and fairness in the administration and collection of sales and use taxes, and for other purposes." Specifically, the Main Street Fairness Act would have allowed state governments to require out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax on purchases shipped to residents of those states. The Main Street Fairness Act was introduced by William Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, on June 30, 2010 and the bill expired at the end of the 111th Congress without being enacted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marketplace Fairness Act</span>

The Marketplace Fairness Act is proposed legislation pending in the United States Congress that would enable state governments to collect sales taxes and use taxes from remote retailers with no physical presence in their state. Identical versions were introduced into both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate during the 113th United States Congress. During the previous, 112th Congress, a bill was considered but expired without enactment.

Glen A. Severson is a former justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court.

Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lawsuit by the Direct Marketing Association trade group about a Colorado law regarding reporting the state's tax requirements to customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. While the case was reheard and found in favor of Colorado, the concurrence of Justice Anthony Kennedy provided a means for states to bring a challenge the ruling of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which has prevented states from collecting taxes from out-of-state vendors.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held by a 5–4 majority that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The decision overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which had held that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state.

References

  1. "Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLP | U.S. Supreme Court Decision Permits States to Charge Sales Tax for Online Purchases". www.whitefordlaw.com. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  2. Aldens, Inc. V. La Follette. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 1976. pp. 35–36.
  3. Intergovernmental Perspective. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1984. p. 29.