Client Alerts & Insights
Supreme Court Says States Have the Right to Require Online Retailers to Collect Sales Tax
June 21, 2018
Authored By:
In a 5 to 4 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to require online retailers to collect sales tax.[1] Their decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al. No. 17-494 overturns previous precedent establishing that states could only levy taxes on those businesses with a physical presence, a brick-and-mortar location, within the state.[2]
Although the IRS requires individual taxpayers to keep track of all purchases made online and to pay all applicable taxes on those purchases, few taxpayers actually fulfill those obligations. In his majority decision, Justice Kennedy noted that states lose an estimated $8 – $33 billion every year in sale tax revenue because of the previous brick-and-mortar rule.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a clear win for the states who have continually argued that tax-free internet sales were costing them billions in lost revenue. Brick-and-mortar stores also win with the decision, as they will now have an even playing field with online retailers, as both entities will likely now have the same obligation to collect and remit sales tax to states in which sales are made.
This decision will most likely lead to an increase in the cost of online goods as retailers pass sales tax for online sales to the end consumer. Small online retailers will have an even more difficult time competing with big name brands, as they will now have additional costs and expenses associated with tracking and collecting sales tax for many disparate local taxing jurisdictions at the point of sale.
States will most certainly begin to enact legislation requiring online retailers to collect and remit sales tax, and there is some discussion of a federal legislative initiative to harmonize state sales tax obligations and rates.
For more information on this topic, contact a member of Benesch’s Intellectual Property/3iP Practice Group.
Michael D. Stovsky at mstovsky@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4626.
Kris J. Chandler at kchandler@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9377.
Latest News
Tariff Refund Q&A: What to Do Now and What Legal Issues Lay Ahead
The administrative process for obtaining IEEPA tariff refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection will soon go live. This brings to a close the wide speculation about whether an administrative process will be available to importers who paid IEEPA-based tariffs that the U.S. Supreme Court determined were unlawful.
LEAD vs. ACO REACH–What’s Changing and Why the LEAD Model Matters for ACOs and Participating Providers
The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (“LEAD”) model is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center’s (Innovation Center) newly announced successor to the ACO Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (REACH) model. While LEAD retains the core framework of two-sided risk and population-based payments, it introduces critical changes aimed at making the program more sustainable, inclusive and effective to foster longer term administration for providers.
CMS Puts Specialists in the Game with LEAD
For years, many specialist physicians have watched Medicare’s ACO programs from the sidelines, uncertain how to participate in models historically centered on primary care providers. The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) Model marks a fundamental shift in this dynamic.
CMS Bets on the Long Game with 10‑Year LEAD ACO Model
The Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) Model is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (Innovation Center) next-generation accountable care initiative, created to succeed the ACO REACH model in 2027.