States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

Most of the coverage I've seen downplays it, but it should be noted that the question is not whether tax is owed on these out-of-state internet purchases, but whether the retailer should be required to collect it and submit it to the state. Currently, the purchaser is (in 45 of 50 states) legally required to pay a "use tax", but most Americans (98%?) are blissfully unaware of this requirement, or have simply decided not to pay it. This is pure illegal tax evasion, based on the (correct) assumption that enforcement is lax and risk of punishment is low: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/16/177384487/most...

Rather than attempting to enforce these existing laws against their residents (unpopular and difficult), states believe it will be easier to get compliance from retailers. Until this decision, it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause for a state to demand this collection unless the retailer had a "substantial nexus" in the state, generally defined as a physical presence. Post-decision (pending new national laws created by Congress) all retailers are fair game. The particular South Dakota law in question has requirements as to volume of purchase, but this is not a principle of the decision.

Beyond the implications for internet retailers, this is an interesting counter-example to the Supreme Court tradition of "stare decisis" (to stand by things already decided). Apparently, everyone on the court agrees that earlier decisions that produced the physical location test were poor precedent. Usually, the court is very reluctant to revisit these decisions, but in this case, the majority justices decided to abandon precedent and explicitly call the earlier decisions mistakes. The dissenting justices, despite conceding that "Bellas Hess was wrongly decided", felt that the court was better off sticking with the flawed precedent than changing things up now.

Personally, whether or not this is good constitutional precedent, I think I agree with the dissenters that allowing local jurisdictions to make laws affecting far-away businesses who have no other local presense is going to lead to problems. Beyond just the burden of collecting confusing locally defined taxes, I fear about where else it leads. If a locality can enforce its local tax laws, what other custom crafted local laws can it enforce in return for access to customers? Can it require a business license? Should it be allowed to enforce its local environmental and labor standards as well? Is this a good thing?

This is one way of looking at things, but I think sales tax is much closer to a tax on consumers than on businesses. Or at least is intended as a tax on consumers to fund their state infrastructure, often because imposing an income tax is impossible (e.g. Washington State constitution) or just politically unpalatable.

Normalising taxes is basically impossible in an environment where sales taxes are a meaningful part of a government's budget.

Does your state online sales tax law have:

* Safe harbor for sellers who have limited activity

* No retroactivity

* Adheres to SSUTA

* State level admin

* Provides software

* Provides immunity for errors

If so, upheld. If not...