Baker McKenzie attended the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral arguments yesterday in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Docket No. 17-494. At issue in the case is whether the Court should abrogate the physical presence nexus standard that it first articulated in National Bellas Hess v. Dep’t of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), and later affirmed in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). The Court’s decision could have a profound impact on sales and use tax nexus in the United States by altering the limitations currently imposed on a state’s ability to require out-of-state retailers to collect such tax.
State efforts to undermine or challenge the Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) physical presence standard escalated this summer with the enactment of two sales and use tax laws targeting marketplace operators. Minnesota House File 1 (“H.F. 1”) and Washington House Bill 2163 (“H.B. 2163”), signed into law on May 30, 2017 and July 7, 2017, respectively, impose sales and use tax obligations on certain marketplaces that facilitate the sales of out-of-state third party retailers. Minnesota and Washington are the first two states to enact such laws, and similar legislation is currently pending in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
On June 12, 2017, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) reintroduced into Congress H.R. 2887, also known as the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017” (the “Legislation”), which codifies the physical presence nexus requirement established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (“Quill”). The Legislation is interesting for several reasons: (1) it proposes to employ a result that is the exact opposite of the recent trend to overturn Quill; (2) it defines “tax” broadly to include net income and business activity taxes; and (3) it expands the law to require a physical presence for states to regulate a person’s activity in interstate commerce outside of the tax context.
The U.S. Supreme Court has requested Michigan’s response to several certiorari appeals from taxpayers seeking relief from Michigan’s retroactive repeal of its Multistate Tax Compact (“MTC”) election. The Court was originally scheduled to review the Michigan petitions at its conference on January 19, but has now provided a February 9 deadline for Michigan’s response. Additionally, the Court’s January 19 conference to discuss Dot Foods, Inc., another state tax retroactivity case appealed to the Court several months ago dealing with the interpretation of a Washington business and occupation tax exemption, has been put on hold. See Dot Foods, Inc. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, U.S., No. 16-308, cert. petition filed 9/9/16 and cert response filed 12/5/16. These recent actions by the Court appear to signal an interest in retroactivity cases, with heightened potential to take one or both cases.