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
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.