SC rules online retailer can collect sales taxes

Mar 2012
58,635
40,148
New Hampshire
Online shopping will soon become more expensive, after the U.S. Supreme court ruled Thursday that states can require Internet retailers to collect sales taxes.

The justices broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred the states from imposing sales taxes on most of the purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers.

The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which asked the court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an Internet sales tax. " In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not force mail-order catalog companies to collect sales taxes unless a buyer lived in a state where the company had a physical presence — a retail store, a headquarters, or a distribution center, for example.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-states-can-require-online-retailers-collect-sales-n873416
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
71,555
48,662
USA
I approve of this decision. But it's curious to me that this SCOTUS will recognize that changes in "facts on the ground" and in the development of more precise technologies necessitate reexamining rules that were settled long ago--in this case but not in others. One justice labeled the examination of such questions "gobbledy****."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,247
46,600
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Some crossover votes on this one. Kennedy (writing for the majority), Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito and Gorsuch (Thomas and Gorsuch also writing concurrences); versus Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

I have not read the opinion yet (click here to do so) - even the syllabus is four pages long - but I wonder how they get around the interstate commerce aspect of the situation, i.e., that interstate commerce is regulable by the federal government under U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. It is possible that states can regulate interstate commerce, though only in such ways as Congress has not already occupied the field, but it has been so long since I have had to deal with Commerce Clause issues that I do not remember how that works. Perhaps reading the Court's opinion will help, but the thing is 40 bloody pages long (including the syllabus), and I just do not have the energy for that right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Dec 2015
12,532
7,729
In Your Heart!
Supreme Court says states can collect online sales tax, consumers likely to pay more

Supreme Court says states can collect online sales tax, consumers likely to pay more
By STEPHANIE EBBS and Audrey Taylor

"In a case that could likely mean consumers paying more nationwide, the Supreme Court Thursday opened the door for states to collect sales taxes on purchases from online retailers even if that company doesn't have a physical presence in that state."
"The court overturned a longstanding rule that states can collect sales taxes only on transactions if the retailer has a "bricks and mortar" presence in that state. The decision could allow more states to impose sales taxes on companies that operate entirely online."






################################################################################

You don't buy online do you? NAH!

I bet all of you are just elated with this ruling that will mean that YOU will have to pay more for your goods when purchased online, right? After all, it's only money. So, to Republicans this should make them very happy to have to pay a lot more for online sales! So, open up your wallets folks and PAY UP!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Nov 2013
11,599
11,597
NY
the previous ruling was diverting a lot of business from brick and mortar to online business.

It also had loopholes, as in buying in brick and mortar, get the merchandise shipped to your home, where that company is not regionally present, and cut out the sales tax.

For full retailers with Brick and mortar still, this will come more as a relief than as a burden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2015
12,532
7,729
In Your Heart!
the previous ruling was diverting a lot of business from brick and mortar to online business.

It also had loopholes, as in buying in brick and mortar, get the merchandise shipped to your home, where that company is not regionally present, and cut out the sales tax.

For full retailers with Brick and mortar still, this will come more as a relief than as a burden.
Undoubtedly. But it is ultimately the consumers that will have to now pay more for what they buy online and I don't think they will be pleased with that at all. In fact, I can see that some may even refrain from making as many purchases online as before depending on how high their state sales tax is.
 

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
14,121
9,872
Left coast
Well, El Douche stopped taxing his rich friends and the SC knows the government will have to get the funds to pay them some way.
 
Jun 2013
18,490
16,333
Here
Online shopping will soon become more expensive, after the U.S. Supreme court ruled Thursday that states can require Internet retailers to collect sales taxes.

The justices broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred the states from imposing sales taxes on most of the purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers.

The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which asked the court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an Internet sales tax. " In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not force mail-order catalog companies to collect sales taxes unless a buyer lived in a state where the company had a physical presence — a retail store, a headquarters, or a distribution center, for example.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-states-can-require-online-retailers-collect-sales-n873416
It was a 5-4 decision. Does anyone wish to know which way the "justice is blind" SCOTUS decison went, with regard to the political partisanship it is supposed to be blind to?

"A considerable portion of the dissent written by Chief Justice Roberts focused on precedent, stating “f stare decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment to overruling precedent now.” Justice Roberts noted, perhaps wryly, that “Whatever salience the adage ‘third time’s a charm’ has in daily life, it is a poor guide to Supreme Court decisionmaking.” Instead, he wrote, the Court proceeded with “an inexplicable sense of urgency.” That feels like an admission that it’s a done deal."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/06/21/supreme-court-kills-quill-gives-states-more-authority-to-collect-sales-tax/#22639f373994

It is interesting that Justice Ginsberg voted with the majority on this one.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,247
46,600
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
It was a 5-4 decision. Does anyone wish to know which way the "justice is blind" SCOTUS decison went, with regard to the political partisanship it is supposed to be blind to?
See my post #3 regarding the Justices' breakdown and links to the Court's Opinion (and a relevant constitutional provision. As indicated, one liberal went with the majority and one conservative dissented.