The new nexus law was challenged, resulting in an opinion by the South Dakota Supreme Court that applied Quill to hold that the new law inappropriately extended the scope of South Dakota’s taxing power. South Dakota sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the Quill physical presence standard. That case is now before the Supreme Court, and thus gives the Court an opportunity to clarify the administration and collection of state taxes as well as to offer guidance on any continuing limitations of a state’s power to tax online retailers under the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Prior to the oral arguments in the Wayfair case on April 17, 2018, at least three Justices (Kennedy, Thomas and Gorsuch) appeared inclined to reassess Quill. Nonetheless, the arguments revealed, through a series of incisive questions, considerable trepidation about overruling the precedent. By the conclusion of the arguments, it was not at all clear how a majority of the Justices would rule.
For instance, Justice Sotomayor raised her “concern about the unanswered questions that overturning precedents will create” as well as unforeseen consequences not anticipated, if the Court were to overturn a precedent such as Quill. She listed various reservations, including “retroactive tax liability;” and questions such as “what happens when the tax programs break down?” “how much contact is enough (by a remote seller) to justify (requiring sales tax collection) on an out-of-state seller?” and “what happens when states and merchants cannot keep track of who received their goods?” “All of these questions are wrought with difficulties,” she noted.
Another spirited exchange occurred as Justices Kagan, Roberts and Breyer expressed concern that overturning Quill might be inappropriate when Congress had not chosen to act. Congress is well aware that the change in landscape has been significant. Justice Kagan declared it “a very prominent issue which Congress has been aware of for a very long time and has chosen not to do something about that.” “Congress,” she noted, “is capable of crafting compromises and trying to figure out how to balance the wide range of interests involved here.” “Congress … can craft a compromise in ways that we cannot.”
Justice Breyer continued the theme, noting that “Congress was about to act. And indeed, what stopped them from acting was our decision to decide this case.” He suggested that the fifty states should have the power to get Congress to act. Chief Justice Roberts wondered, though, whether the state sales tax issue was “a problem that has ‘peaked’.” If so, perhaps leaving Quill in place would be the best solution.
When Justice Kennedy asked what difference it made for the Court whether Quill was correctly or incorrectly decided, George S. Isaacson, a lawyer representing Wayfair and other online merchants, argued the “value in settled expectations and standing by the decision.” Isaacson relied on former Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Quill, in which he argued that stare decisis is most important where Congress can address an issue. Isaacson concluded his response with a strong claim that “stare decisis is not dependent upon the correctness of the decision. In fact, if a decision is correct, (then) stare decisis isn’t necessary.
The questions and responses in the oral argument may well influence the Justices in deciding the Wayfair case. These are dynamic issues in a still-changing field. Congress’s clear awareness of the changed technological situation, Congress’s potential ability to craft a compromise in a way that the Supreme Court cannot, and the oft disregarded but sometimes emphasized doctrine of stare decisis – all raise highly consequential issues.
If the Court does not act, it is not clear whether state actions, laws, and subsequent challenges will be sufficient to spur Congress to enact legislation, under the threat that states across the country may respond to judicial and congressional inaction by enacting their own laws subjecting remote sellers to collection obligations. Such inconsistent standards are a primary reason for a Commerce Clause solution, since they engender fragmentation in compliance and enforcement and leave states and online merchants with many uncertainties. Yet it is clear that little, if any, progress has been made in Congress in spite of mounting pressure on the states due to loss of revenues from remote sellers’ ability to avoid collecting state taxes. Only the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 has garnered a Senate floor vote. Failure of the Supreme Court to act thus likely would ensure a continuing uncertain future for sales and use tax nexus.
The Supreme Court has two choices. It may choose to overturn Quill, articulating a new nexus standard that covers online sales, or it may leave the current laws in place that exempt online merchants under the Quill precedent. Either way, Congress could develop its own solution to remote sales tax collection by overriding or affirming the Supreme Court. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe to write Quill’s epithet.