Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

Last updated

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 22, 1992
Decided May 26, 1992
Full case nameQuill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp
Citations504 U.S. 298 ( more )
112 S. Ct. 1904; 119 L. Ed. 2d 91; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3123; 60 U.S.L.W. 4423; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4458; 92 Daily Journal DAR 7142; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269
Holding
The lack of a physical nexus in a state is sufficient grounds to exempt a corporation from having to pay sales and use taxes to a state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by unanimous court (parts I, II, III); Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter (part IV)
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas
Concur/dissentWhite
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I § 8
Overruled by
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967) (in part)

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. [1]

Contents

Quill modified an earlier court decision, National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois , which dealt with a state imposing the duty of use tax collection on a mail order reseller. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl , [2] which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and overturned both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess.

Background

The North Dakota Office of State Tax Commissioner attempted to require Quill Corporation to collect and pay use tax on sales shipped into the state. [1] The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the statute.

Quill Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware, did not have a physical location in North Dakota. None of its workers were located there. Quill sold office equipment and stationery in North Dakota by using catalogs, flyers, advertisements in national periodicals, and telephone calls. Deliveries were made by post and common carrier from out-state-locations. [3] Quill would have been required to pay back taxes for three years, had the ruling gone in favor of the State of North Dakota.

Opinion of the Court

North Dakota argued that under due process, Quill Corporation had established a presence, as the floppy disks holding Quill's software provided to in-state customers were physically located in their state. The Supreme Court based its reasoning on analysis of the Commerce Clause rather than due process. [3]

The Commerce Clause gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce and prohibits certain state actions, such as applying duties that interfere with trade among the states. In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois , [4] the Court had 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. [3]

The Court concluded that Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady [5] did not limit or undo the Bellas Hess rule. A corporation, the court ruled, may have the minimum contacts required by the due process clause and still fall short of the substantial nexus required by the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court noted that the bright-line rule of National Bellas Hess "furthers the ends" of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Court thus reversed the decision of the North Dakota Supreme Court that required Quill Corporation to collect and remit "use" taxes on purchases made by customers from that state. [3]

Effect on taxation of online sales

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require the business to collect sales taxes. However, the Court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation. [1] There have been many attempts by politicians to change this decision through legislation. No bills have made it to law, however, because of the controversy surrounding this matter.

Amazon.com used this ruling to justify not charging sales tax on its online sales, which gave it a competitive advantage over retailers from 1995 until 2012, when pressure from states made Amazon collect sales tax in some of the states. [6]

The soundness of the Quill decision has been questioned by legal scholars and judges in the twenty-first century as online sales have largely escaped taxation to the detriment of brick-and-mortar stores and state and local treasuries. [7] In a related 2015 Supreme Court case Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl , [2] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his concurrence that the Quill decision had a "tenuous nature", that there was "serious, continuing injustice faced by Colorado and many other States" of being able to collect sales taxes only from brick-and-mortar stores, and offered "it is unwise to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court's holding in Quill". [8] Kennedy's opinion suggested urgency for a case for the Supreme Court to review the Quill decision according to analysts. This led to several states to draft and purposely enact "kill Quill" laws to collect sales taxes for out-of-state purchases as to create the necessary legal vehicle to take to the Supreme Court. [9] States which choose to collect sales taxes on online sales of retailers without a nexus often set minimum values and transactions, under which companies are not required to collect sales taxes. [10]

South Dakota was the first state to complete its bill and establish the need for a Supreme Court judicial review. In October 2017, the state of South Dakota filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to "abrogate Quill's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement". [11] [7] : i  In the petition for certiorari, under the case name South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , [12] South Dakota noted that advances in computer technology have made it easier to determine appropriate sales tax based on the purchaser's location and requiring such "poses a minimal obstacle" [7] : 3  in an era where retailers can easily tailor their online marketing based on customers' IP addresses. [7] : 3  South Dakota argued that Quill should be overturned and that the case satisfied the Supreme Court's criteria for declining to maintain its previous ruling under the doctrine of stare decisis . [7] : 20, 27–35  The Court agreed to hear the case in January 2018, with arguments heard in April 2018. [13] The Court ruled in June 2018 on a 5–4 decision that the physical presence aspect of Quill was "unsound and incorrect" with the state of current technology, and overturned Quill along with the remaining parts of National Bellas Hess. [12] [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

<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.

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball.

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), was a court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5–4 decision that ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same were unconstitutional. The case was unusual because the arguments centered on the rarely-invoked Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1933, which ended Prohibition in the United States.

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.

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.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

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.

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Illinois law requiring trucks to have unique mudguards was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause.

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.

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.

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents. This "market participant" doctrine is an exception to the so-called negative commerce clause, which ordinarily deems state regulations invalid where they discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce for the purpose of economic protectionism.

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.

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015), is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to Maryland's personal income tax scheme and found that the failure to provide a full credit for income taxes paid to other states was unconstitutional.

Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states, although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.

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. 1 2 3 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
  2. 1 2 Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl ,No. 13-1032 , 575 U.S. ___(2015).
  3. 1 2 3 4 How the High Court Could Help Amazon, by Robert Willens, CFO Magazine, January 31, 2011.
  4. ↑ National Bellas Hess v. Illinois , 386 U.S. 753 (1967).
  5. ↑ Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady , 430 U.S. 274 (1977).
  6. ↑ The Amazon Effect The Nation. Retrieved February 2, 2016
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Eric F. Citron, et al. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. October 2, 2017. Retrieved October 29, 2017 – via SCOTUSblog.
  8. ↑ Fisher, Daniel (March 3, 2015). "Online Merchants Can Challenge Colorado Tax Law, Supreme Court Says". Forbes . Retrieved January 12, 2018.
  9. ↑ Liptak, Adam (March 5, 2015). "Upholding Internet Sales Tax Law, a Justice Invites a New Case". The New York Times . Retrieved January 15, 2018.
  10. ↑ "U.S. retail holiday sales jump 4.9%, biggest increase since 2011". USA Today. December 26, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  11. ↑ "South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved October 29, 2017.
  12. 1 2 South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. ,No. 17-494 , 585 U.S. ___(2018).
  13. ↑ Storh, Greg (January 12, 2018). "U.S. Supreme Court to Review Bid to Collect Internet Sales Tax". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved January 12, 2018.
  14. ↑ "Supreme Court rules in internet sales tax case". Associated Press. June 21, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2018– via CBS News.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.