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
Judicial Green Light: Court Upholds NLRB’s Cemex Decision
On April 21st, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC., reinforcing a significant shift in federal labor law governing union recognition and employer conduct during organizing campaigns.
The LEAD Model—Kidney Care’s Value-Based Care Journey LEADs Here
The new LEAD Model, launching in 2027, is CMS’s next-generation value-based care framework for kidney care, integrating CKD and ESRD patients into standard ACOs with a 10-year benchmark period, new payment options and greater flexibility for nephrology-led organizations.
DOL Proposes Universal Guidance Meant to Simplify Joint Employer Analysis
On April 22, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division proposed a new rule to clarify joint employer status and the related analysis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act (“MSAPA”).
Only the Strong Survive: Easy Pitfalls to Avoid as a Defamation Plaintiff
Filing a defamation lawsuit is one thing. Surviving the inevitable motion to dismiss is another. A recent case out of the Eastern District of North Carolina, McKnight v. FOXY/WFXC/K 107.1/104.3 Radio Station, et al., Civil Action No. 5:26-cv-102, provides a useful case study in the kinds of missteps that can doom a defamation complaint before it ever reaches discovery.