Sales Tax Issues before the Supreme Court

Charles Maniace
March 12, 2015

District Court Injunction against Colorado Allowed to Stand

On March 3, 2015 the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl (575 U.S. (2015).  In this case, a trade association for retailers challenged legislation enacted by the state of Colorado in 2010 that required sellers that do not have a tax collection and remittance obligation (i.e. nexus) with the state of Colorado, but who have gross sales in Colorado exceeding $100,000, perform the following activities with respect to their sales to Colorado residents:

  1. Notify purchasers at the time of the sale that tax is not being collected by the seller and may be due and payable by the purchaser to the Department of Revenue.
  2. Provide all Colorado customers who purchased more than $500 worth of goods in a given year, an annual report showing their purchases broken down by date, category and amount. The report is also required to reiterate the use tax reporting and remittance obligation imposed on the customer.
  3. Provide the Department of Revenue an annual report showing the names of all Colorado customers, their known address, and the total dollar amount of purchases in the prior calendar year.

Penalties were to be imposed for failure to comply with any of these requirements.

Colorado is not the only jurisdiction to enact such a notice provision, but they are unique in their requirement of having the seller report all sales made to their residents to the Department of Revenue.  The Colorado rules were largely based upon a model provision proposed by the Multistate Tax Commission, the work on which was suspended once the Colorado litigation began.

The foundational rationale for enacting this type of rule lies in the inability of states, based on existing legal jurisprudence, to impose tax collection and remittance obligations on sellers unless that seller has a substantial physical presence within their jurisdiction. Over the last few years, as Congress continues to debate the Marketplace Fairness Act, states have looked for avenues to increase their  tax collections while still abiding by requirements affirmed in Quill v. N.D. (504 US 298, 112 S Ct 1904 (1992)).  Notice provisions seek to increase voluntary compliance with existing consumer’s use liability rules among private individuals and potentially provide the DOR an avenue to collect from said individuals.

The District Court which first heard this case granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and permanently enjoined Colorado from enforcing the notice requirement. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court did not have the legal authority to impose such an injunction.  The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the 10th Circuit, holding that authority to impose the injunction in fact exists.

The legal rationale for the Court’s decision lies in an interpretation of the scope of the Tax Injunction Act which prohibits the federal courts from enjoining, suspending or restraining the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under state law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had at the state level. In sum, the Court held that a “notice” provision did not constitute a “collection, assessment or levy” activity.

The most interesting element of the decision, at least from our perspective, lies in the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy who took this opportunity to opine on the line of existing cases that articulate the physical presence/nexus requirement. Noting that the original decision defining such a requirement was decided more than 50 years ago, that being National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753 (1967), and that the more recent Quill case affirming the decision was based significantly on the principal of stare decisis (meaning that past Court precedent rather than the specific merits of the underlying argument dictate the correct result), Justice Kennedy believes that the Quill court should have taken the opportunity to re-evaluate its prior decision, especially “in view of the dramatic technological and social changes that had taken place in our increasingly interconnected economy.”

Justice Kennedy opines that the current rules “create a startling revenue shortfall in many states, with concomitant unfairness to local retailers and their customers who do pay taxes at the register.” Further, in light of the substantial economic presence that retailers are able to create through the use of modern technology, “[T]here is a powerful case to be made that a retailer doing extensive business within a state has a sufficiently “substantial nexus” to justify imposing some minor tax-collection duty, even if that business is done through mail or the Internet.” After all, “interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of state taxes.”

With all this in mind, Kennedy considers it “unwise to delay any longer a reconsideration of the Court’s holding in Quill” and suggests “[t]he legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess.”

Sovos Compliance will continue to monitor developments within the Supreme Court and update our clients accordingly.

 

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

Charles Maniace

Charles Maniace is Vice President – Regulatory Analysis & Design at Sovos. An attorney by trade, Chuck leads a team of attorneys responsible for all the tax and regulatory content that keeps Sovos clients continually compliant. Over his 14 year career in tax and regulatory automation, he has given talks and presentations on a variety of topics including The Taxation of High Tech Transactions, The Taxation of Remote Commerce, The Regulatory Implications of Brexit, The Rise of E-Audits, Form 1042-S Best Practices and Penalty Abatement Practices for Information Returns. Chuck is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and holds a B.S. in Business Economics from Bentley College, a J.D. from Boston University School of Law, and an LL.M in Taxation from Boston University School of Law.
Share This Post

ShipCompliant United States
February 27, 2020
An Analyst’s Insights into 2020 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping Report

Sovos ShipCompliant and Wines Vines Analytics recently released the 2020 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping Report and we asked Tom Wark of Wark Communications, a company specializing in beverage industry communications, to give us some of his insights and takeaways from this year’s report. Tom has been involved in the creation of the DtC report for many […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
February 27, 2020
Greece Publishes Accreditation Scheme for E-invoicing Service Providers

Certification of e-invoice service providers is an important first step and milestone ahead of the implementation of e-invoicing in Greece.  The Greek Government has now defined the regulatory framework for e-invoice service providers, their obligations, and a set of requirements needed to certify their invoicing software.   Key details and parameters Scope E-invoice service providers […]

Sales & Use Tax United States
February 26, 2020
It’s Time for Tax to Step Up and Be Heard

In a recent piece published by Deloitte, Upgrading to SAP S/4 HANA: The evolving role of the tax function in large multinationals, the case is made that the move to S/4 HANA is the right time and technology for tax to embrace digital transformation. We would agree. With SAP extending the support deadline of its […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA Italy VAT & Fiscal Reporting
February 26, 2020
Italy’s e-invoicing reform: A new FatturaPA

Italy has been a pioneer when it comes to automating e-invoicing processes. It first introduced a B2G e-invoicing system in 2014 which has since evolved into a robust and mandatory platform for the exchange of invoices now also expanded to include B2B and B2C transactions. The Italian central e-invoicing platform SDI was considered revolutionary by […]

Asia Pacific Brazil Colombia EMEA Italy LATAM Mexico Spain Tax Compliance Tax Information Reporting United States
February 25, 2020
Prepare to Pay Taxes on Crypto Held in Foreign Accounts

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a U.S. Congress watchdog, published a report evaluating the IRS’s approach to regulating virtual currency (crypto) and the guidance it has offered the public. The GAO’s Recommendation However, a portion of the report was directed at the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. […]