Supreme Court closes online sales tax loophole

Share

"There is nothing unfair about requiring companies that avail themselves of the States' benefits to bear an equal share of the burden of tax collection", Kennedy said.

Most states would need to pass legislation before seeking to collect the additional taxes, although some have already enacted laws or regulations similar to South Dakota's.

It's not the first time New Hampshire's leaders have mobilized against a potential internet sales tax.

"As in so many other areas, technology has evolved faster than the law and left us with at times weird, unfair results", she said.

Kennedy cited estimates that said mail-order sales in the United States totaled $180 billion in 1992, whereas e-commerce retail sales alone past year totaled $453.5 billion. It also drew strong condemnation from elected officials in New Hampshire.

Allowing some online retailers off the hook in collecting sales taxes put small local businesses at a disadvantage, Kadoun said. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.

State governments may require online retailers to collect sales taxes even in states where the retailers have no physical presence, the US Supreme Court ruled in a decision issued today.

The case the court ruled on involved a 2016 law passed by South Dakota, which said it was losing out on an estimated $50 million a year in sales tax not collected by out-of-state sellers.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who wrote the dissenting opinion, argued that the Supreme Court left this question to Congress in 1992, and Congress has not acted.

Online shopping may be about to get more expensive.

"The taxpayers of Florida really rely heavily on the sales tax".

More news: European firms say China business 'more difficult'

"It effectively penalizes "brick-and-mortar" businesses that choose to locate, hire employees and invest in the State of Maryland", Franchot said. The ruling "is a nightmare for American businesses and small online sellers, who will now have to comply with the different tax rates and rules" of each jurisdiction, said a statement by US Reps.

Today's ruling caused publicly traded e-commerce companies share prices to tumble, with Shopify, Etsy, Amazon, eBay, Alibaba all recording losses in midday trading on their respective USA exchanges. Amazon was among the biggest drags on the benchmark S&P 500 stock index.

Cohen's hope is that the decision by the high court this morning may at last begin easing what has become an increasingly burdensome situation for brick-and-mortar retailers.

This changes everything about internet e-commerce.

"Consumers will quickly feel the negative effects as those businesses dry up or are forced into the arms of Internet giants", he added. North Dakota. They argued that a decision in a case involving mail-order catalogs was obsolete in the modern e-commerce world. The law could yet face legal challenges on other grounds, Kennedy noted.

Many would be surprised to learn that a "use" tax is already technically required on all out-of-state online purchases. But that money is likely to come out of the pockets of consumers.

Richard Anklam, executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, described the ruling as "a favorable decision for the state, which has tried to achieve this result for quite some time".

More than 40 other states and Trump's administration asked SCOTUS to overturn Quill v.

The case is South Dakota v. Wayfair, 17-494.

"When the day-to-day functions of marketing and distribution in the modern economy are considered, it is all the more evident that the physical presence rule is artificial in its entirety", Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "We heard stories from major retailers in King County that told us they were a display room for online shoppers".

"With the appropriate action by the Legislature and Florida Department of Revenue, not only will the state be able to collect the sales and use tax that has always been legally due, but Floridians will no longer be unknowingly breaking the law".

Share