Rare Book Monthly

Articles - July - 2018 Issue

Every Merchant May Soon Have to Collect Sales Taxes for Every State Thanks to Supreme Court Decision

4610c37d-f1a5-41f8-b458-86afd7060d27

Tine to ring them up?

The U. S. Supreme Court reached an important, not particularly unexpected decision on sales taxes that potentially effects everyone who sells anything into a state other than their own. The court has opened the door to requiring any such merchant, say a bookseller, for instance, to collect and remit sales taxes for that other state. There are 45 such states, but on top of that, 10,000 local entities that can now require their sales taxes be collected. The fun has only just begun.

 

The legal technicalities of the case have to do with the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution. That clause provides jurisdiction over interstate commerce to the federal government. In two previous decisions, the Court ruled that states could only regulate interstate commerce, such as requiring out-of-state merchants to collect sales taxes, if those merchants had some "nexus," or connection to that state. If it had employees in the state, a store, a warehouse, something like that, they could require the merchant to collect their sales tax, even if the sale itself was being made by internet or phone to a sales office in another state. However, if there was no nexus, no dice.

 

Now, that has changed. In a 5-4 decision, the Court did something it rarely does - overturn its own precedent. It said that the old decision was wrong, in effect, the mere fact that an out-of-state merchant sells to customers in another state is essentially enough to fill any need for nexus.

 

Their reasoning seems odd to this observer, one based more on sympathy towards states having difficulty collecting taxes than on constitutional law. There is a better way to tackle this problem, if the people of America want to "fix" it, which the minority of four pointed out. Their representatives in Washington can pass such legislation tomorrow if they so choose. They can authorize use the federal government's Commerce Clause power to authorize the states to require collection of sales taxes from out-of-staters. The issue here seems to be that while the states, local retailers, some internet/mail order companies, and the Supreme Court all want to fix the "problem," the American people do not.

 

A few statements by the majority in their opinion struck me as strange. The Court says that the old nexus doctrine "has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field." This has been the primary claim of states and local merchants, that those "Main Street" retailers are at a disadvantage as they must charge sales taxes. So, does this change make it equal? Local retailers collect one uniform rate. It's simple. In those five states without a sales tax, they collect none. Out-of-state retailers now can be compelled to compute, collect and remit 45 state and 10,000 different local jurisdictions' taxes. Is this an "even playing field?"

 

That's only a part of it. Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, points out some state idiosyncrasies that merchants in the other 49 must now learn. New Jersey, for instance, charges sales tax on yarn used for art projects, but not for knitting sweaters. Texas charges sales tax on plain deodorant, but not on deodorant containing antiperspirant. In my favorite, Illinois charges sales tax on Snickers, but not on Twix. Why? Because Twix, having some flour in them, is a non-taxable food item, while Snickers is a mere candy. If this is fine with the people of Illinois and their representatives, it is fine with me. That is their right. At least Illinois merchants have a chance of learning this. But, are retailers supposed to learn every bizarre idiosyncrasy for each of the 45 taxing states? And, by the way, some states have temporary tax holidays on specific merchandise, but the dates and items given a day off are not uniform across the states.

 

The majority's answer to this inequity is particularly strange. The Court responds, "Eventually, software that is available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small businesses to cope with these problems." Eventually? May? Shouldn't the horse come before the cart? Eventually, pigs may fly, but so what?

 

Here is a contradiction by the Court in their own reasoning. The majority says the rule keeps merchants out of other states to avoid having a nexus. They say, "Distortions caused by the desire of businesses to avoid tax collection mean that the market may currently lack storefronts, distribution points, and employment centers that otherwise would be efficient or desirable." Isn't discouraging internet retailers from opening local competitive stores a benefit to local retailers, rather than a disadvantage? Over 90% of all sales are made through local retail, not online and mail order. Is it really a positive for Main Street that Amazon, which now voluntarily collects sales taxes for all 45 states, is opening local bookstores, grocery stores, and who knows what next? Isn't the ability to provide local service a competitive advantage available only to those businesses with a nexus to the state?

 

The court argues that "Stare decisis [judicial precedent] can no longer support the Court’s prohibition of a valid exercise of the States’ sovereign power." All well and good, but who is stopping the state from collecting their taxes, out-of-state merchants? Consumers are legally obligated to pay sales tax (technically "use tax") where a sales tax is due but the merchant doesn't collect it for them. The real problem here is that most consumers either don't know about this requirement or are scofflaws. Is it out-of-staters' fault that a state cannot enforce its tax laws on its own citizens? Should New York be compelled to send revenue agents to South Dakota if South Dakota can't get its citizens to pay their property taxes? The Court talks about tax avoidance, but it is not the out-of-state merchants who are avoiding taxes. They don't owe anything. It's the state's own residents. The Court notes that "consumer compliance rates are notoriously low" with voluntary sales/use tax payments (around 4%), but again, why is that some out-of-state merchant's responsibility?

 

The Court shows extra sympathy for the plight of South Dakota, saying, "Particularly because South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund essential services." Who is stopping South Dakota from employing an income tax instead if it can't enforce its sales tax, the people of New York? Most states have an income tax and no other states help them collect those taxes. In fact, there are three states that have an income tax but no sales tax - Oregon, Delaware, and Montana. If South Dakota is having trouble surviving without impaneling out-of-staters to collect their sales taxes, why can't they call tax authorities in those three states and ask how they manage to survive?

 

We noted earlier that simply selling goods to customers in another state seems to be sufficient to constitute "nexus." Here, the Supreme Court adds a wrinkle and an uncertainty. It says that clearly there is nexus under South Dakota law because "The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $100,000 of goods or services into South Dakota or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods and services into the State on an annual basis." Is this a minimum requirement for nexus? The Court does not say. Will $50,000 or 100 transactions pass muster? How about $25,000 or 50? $1 or 1? What is the minimum? Is there a minimum? We don't know. What does the Constitution say?

 

We take no position on whether it is good or bad to compel out-of-state merchants to collect sales taxes. That is for the people to decide. What we do think is Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, have a much more sensible answer to this issue. They do not approve of the prior decisions that set up the old nexus test, even agreeing with the majority that it was wrongly decided at the time. Nevertheless, people depend on precedent, and it should not lightly be overturned, particularly in cases where a legislative remedy is readily available. This is not an issue of a fundamental constitutional right such as free speech or freedom of assembly. This is about making it easier for states to impose certain taxation requirements on merchants. A constitutional amendment is not required to change the outcome. It simply needs Congress to pass a law delegating to the states certain powers under the Commerce Clause.

 

The minority points out, "Correctly calculating and remitting sales taxes on all e-commerce sales
will likely prove baffling for many retailers. Over 10,000 jurisdictions levy sales taxes, each with different tax rates, different rules governing tax-exempt goods and services, different product category definitions, and different standards for determining whether an out-of-state seller has a substantial presence in the jurisdiction." They continue, "The burden will fall disproportionately on small businesses... A good reason to leave these matters to Congress is that legislators may more directly consider the competing interests at stake. Unlike this Court, Congress has the flexibility to address these questions in a wide variety of ways."

 

It may be true that 41 states supported South Dakota in its quest to facilitate tax collection in this manner, but a solution is already in the hands of the elected representatives of those states in Washington. If this is what their people desire, those representatives can make those changes, and implement them in the fairest way possible, any time they so choose. So far, those elected representatives have not made this choice, but that is not a good reason for the Court to make it on their behalf.


Posted On: 2018-07-03 08:59
User Name: bukowski

Pay your taxes. Those who refuse to pay taxes can make all sorts of justifications for not doing so, but the reality is simply that they are shirkers and scofflaws whose cheapness trumps their sense of civic duty. Americans have taxation AND representation. There could be no civil society without either, so please stifle your hypocrisy and pay.


Posted On: 2018-07-03 15:58
User Name: Bkwoman

As a bookseller who sells in a store and online, I don't mind paying taxes, but how in the hell can we possibly pay them in 47 states every time we sell a book? Do we have to file a tax form every year for every state that we sell in? Software or no software, that seems impossible to me.


Rare Book Monthly

  • <b>Leland Little: Important Fall Auction. September 22, 2018</b>
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Published Half Plate Ambrotype of a North Carolina Confederate Officer. $2,000 to $4,000
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Two 19th Century Books Pertaining to Canada's Red River Settlement. $400 to $800
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Two Books With Fore-Edge Paintings of British Architectual Landmarks. $400 to $600
    <b>Leland Little: Important Fall Auction. September 22, 2018</b>
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Andy Warhol (American, 1928-1987), "Torte a la Dobosch" from <i>Wild Raspberries</i>. $1,000 to $3,000
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Keith Haring (American, 1958-1990), <i>Pop Shop II,</i> One Plate screenprint in colors, on wove paper, 1998. $8,000 to $12,000
    <b>Leland Little, Sep. 22:</b> Thomas Rowlandson (British, 1756-1827), Twenty-Two Prints from the <i>Tours of Dr. Syntax</i>. $500 to $1,000
  • <b>19th Century Shop:</b> Charles Darwin on sexuality and the transmission of hereditary characteristics: Autograph Letter Signed to Lawson Tait. Down, 17 January [1877].
    <b>19th Century Shop:</b> MILTON, JOHN. <i>Paradise Lost. A Poem written in ten books.</i> London: 1667. A very rare example with the contemporary binding untouched and with a 1667 title page.
    <b>19th Century Shop:</b> Hamilton secures the ratification of the Constitution: <i>The Debates and Proceedings of the Convention of the State of New-York, assembled at Poughkeespsie, on the 17th June, 1788.</i>
    <b>19th Century Shop:</b> The social contract “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”: ROUSSEAU, JEAN-JACQUES. <i>Principes du Droit Politique [Du Contract Social]</i>. Amsterdam: Michel Rey, 1762
    <b>19th Century Shop:</b> “The first English textbook on geometrical land-measurement and surveying”: BENESE, RICHARD. <i>This Boke Sheweth the Maner of Measurynge All Maner of Lande…</i>
  • <b>Bonhams: Exploration and Travel, Featuring Americana, Part I. September 25, 2018</b>
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Shackleton, Ernest. <i>Aurora Australis.</i> Printed at the sign of 'The Penguins'; East Antarctica, 1908. $70,000 to $100,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Shackleton, Ernest. <i>South Polar Times.</i> 1st edition, limited issue. from the library of Michael Barne. $20,000 to $30,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> General Washington's <i>Proceedings of a General Court Martial... of Major General Lee.</i> Philiadelphia, 1778. 100 copies printed for Congress. BOUND WITH: ...Court Martial... of St Clair and ...Schuyler. $25,000 to $35,000
    <b>Bonhams: Exploration and Travel, Featuring Americana, Part I. September 25, 2018</b>
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> <i>The Voice of the People.</i> Boston, 1754. Rare pamphlet on the Excise Tax. Nathaniel Sparhawk's copy. $4,000 to $6,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Autograph Letter Signed ("S.L. Clemens"), offering extensive hard-earned advice on writing, 5 pp, 1881. $30,000 to $50,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> After Fra Egnazio Danti. <i>L'Ultime Parti not:e nel Indie Occid:ntli" [The last known parts of the Western Indies].</i> Painted Map of California, Western Mexico, and Japan. $70,000 to $100,000
    <b>Bonhams: Exploration and Travel, Featuring Americana, Part I. September 25, 2018</b>
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Ptolemaeus, Claudius. <i>Geographie opus nouissima...</i> 1513. The most important edition of Ptolemy, containing the Admiral's Map. $250,000 to $350,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> De Arellano, Don Alonso. Manuscript, his <i>"Relación mui singular y circunstanciada... Capitán del Patax San Lucas,"</i> manuscript copy from the Sir Thomas Phillips collection. $50,000 to $80,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Purchas, Samuel. <i>Purchas his Pilgrimes.</i> First edition. With John Simth's engraved map of Virginia. $70,000 to $100,000
    <b>Bonhams: Exploration and Travel, Featuring Americana, Part I. September 25, 2018</b>
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> Lewis, Meriwether. Contemporary manuscript true copy of his final power of attorney, 1809. $8,000 to $12,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> <i>A New Method of Macarony Making, as Practiced at Boston in North America.</i> Mezzotint. London, 1774. $5,000 to $7,000
    <b>Bonhams, Sep. 25:</b> <i>Scientific Base Ball Pitching: A Treatise on the Pitcher, Pitching, Origin and Philosophy of the Curve.</i> Chicago, 1897. $2,000 to $3,000
  • <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Franklin H. Brown, <i>State Sovereignty, National Union,</i> Chicago, 1860. $6,000 to $9,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Thomas Paine, <i>The American Crisis,</i> Fishkill, NY, December 1776. $25,000 to $35,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b><br>The Aitken Bible, Philadelphia, 1781. $20,000 to $30,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Francisco Loubayssin de Lamarca, probable first edition of the first novel set in the Spanish New World, Paris, 1617. $15,000 to $25,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Juan de la Anunciación, <i>Sermonario en lengua mexicana,</i> first edition, first book of sermons in Nahuatl, Mexico, 1577. $30,000 to $40,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Maturino Gilberti, <i>Thesoro spiritual en lengua de Mechuacá,</i> first edition, Mexico, 1558. $15,000 to $25,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Commission of William O. Stoddard as secretary to the president, signed by Lincoln, Washington, 1861. $7,000 to $10,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> <i>Clay and Frelinghuysen,</i> flag banner, circa 1844. $8,000 to $12,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Daguerreotype of a man believed to be Frederick Granger Williams Smith, son of Joseph Smith, circa late 1850s. $10,000 to $15,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> John C. Wolfe, <i>Portrait of Abraham Lincoln,</i> oil on board in period wooden frame, circa 1860s. $12,000 to $18,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Francis W. Winton, manuscript on pow-wows with indigenous Canadians, 1881. $15,000 to $25,000.
    <b>Swann Auction Galleries Sep 27:</b> Family letters from two young daguerreotype artists, 1826-79. $10,000 to $15,000.

Article Search

Archived Articles

Ask Questions