Small Business Taxes & Management

Special Report


Supreme Court Rules on Out-of-State Vendors for Sales Tax

 

Small Business Taxes & ManagementTM--Copyright 2018, A/N Group, Inc.

 

In a 1992 landmark decision (Quill Corp. vs. North Dakota) the Supreme Court said that a seller had to have a physical presence in a state before that state could require it to collect sales tax. For example, Madison, Inc. a New York corporation, not having offices elsewhere sells through a catalog delivered by mail. A customer in Maine orders snow shoes. Under that decision Madison would not have to charge sales tax on the snow shoes. If Madison opened a manufacturing plant with one employee or stored inventory in Maine, that state could require it to collect sales tax.

But in 1992 on line sales barely existed; now that account for a substantial, and fast growing, segment of the overall market. Many states have devised ways to capture some of those lost sales and have devised a number of ways to create a "connection" between an out-of-state seller and the state. One of the most popular is the "click-through nexus law". Basically, if a buyer clicks on an ad on a website maintained in the state where the sale is made. There's usually a threshold on such sales. For example, the rule doesn't apply until sales in the state top $10,000. There are other approaches that are not as popular. Finally some states have not yet addressed the issue.

In the current case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, South Dakota vs. Wayfair, Inc., South Dakota enacted a law in 2016 that required out-of-state retailers that deliver more than $100,000 in goods or services or make 200 or more transactions annually in the state to collect and remit sales tax. The law was written in such a way to enhance its chances for surviving a court battle that did, indeed, come to pass. The Court found a number of faults with the 1992 Quill decision and noted the changes created by the internet since then. The Court found that the 2016 South Dakota law was valid, noting that the safe harbor threshold for activity did not unduly burden businesses.

What does this mean? Look for most states to enact laws to tax out-of-state sellers using a safe harbor threshold similar to that in use by South Dakota. Using the same threshold would make challenging the state law impossible. A lower threshold could leave the state vulnerable. States with dissimilar approaches currently may change their laws. It's possible Congress could enact legislation to avoid a multitude of different laws. That seems unlikely given the current state of Congress. If you sell via the internet and your sales could reach the thresholds mentioned above, you would be wise to start adapting your systems to track sales by state and, if appropriate, by local jurisdiction.

 


Copyright 2018 by A/N Group, Inc. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. The information is not necessarily a complete summary of all materials on the subject. Copyright is not claimed on material from U.S. Government sources.--ISSN 1089-1536


Return to Home Page

--Last Update 06/21/18