In Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Dkt. No. TC 5197 (Oregon Tax Ct. Dec. 23, 2016), the Oregon Tax Court held that physical presence was unnecessary to establish nexus for corporate excise and corporate income tax purposes. As we reported last month, the Ohio Supreme Court similarly upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s factor presence (or, economic nexus) standard for purposes of the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax. Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7760 (Ohio 2016). (See our previous post, Ohio Supreme Court Physical Presence Not Required for Commercial Activity Tax.)
Background – South Dakota’s Remote Sales Tax Case
South Dakota recently enacted Senate Bill 106 (“SB 106”), requiring all retailers with annual in-state sales exceeding $100,000, or 200 separate transactions within the state in a year, to collect and remit sales tax, even if the retailer does not have a physical presence in the state. As stated in the “Legislative Findings” of SB 106, the statute was designed to directly challenge the physical presence standard set forth in the 1992 US Supreme Court decision, Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298. In Quill, the US Supreme Court affirmed the physical presence standard, prohibiting states from imposing sales and use tax collection obligations on out-of-state retailers that lack physical presence within the state. To compel compliance with SB 106, the South Dakota Department of Revenue (the “Department” or “State”) sued four online retailers including Wayfair Inc., Newegg Inc., Overstock.com Inc., and Systemax Inc. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et al., D.S.D. No. 3-16-CV-03019-RAL (“Wayfair”). Systemax has since dropped out of the lawsuit and registered with the state to collect sales tax.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (“Mobile Workforce Act” or “Act”), on September 21, 2016. The Senate received the House-approved bill on September 22, 2016, and its ultimate fate remains unclear.
The bright-line physical presence nexus standard established by the US Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) for sales and use tax purposes is under attack. Under this standard, a company must have a physical presence within a state in order for such state to constitutionally impose its sales or use tax upon that company. If such in-state physical presence does not exist, the imposition of tax is unconstitutional because it fails the “substantial nexus” requirement of the Commerce Clause. This has been the rule for the past 24 years, but now, in response to Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, Dkt. 13-1032 (U.S. 2015) advocating for a reconsideration of Quill, South Dakota and Alabama have enacted controversial sales and use tax nexus laws designed to directly conflict with the US Supreme Court’s holding in Quill. Both states have found companies willing to challenge them, including Newegg, Inc., a company that has been targeted by both states in their attempts to overturn Quill. For additional background on the events leading up to each state’s change, please refer to the prior Tax News and Developments article States on the Verge of a Nexus Showdown (Vol. 16, Issue 2, April 2016).