Important Tax Cases: Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and the Physical Presence Rule for Sales Tax Collection
July 19, 2005
In the Complete Auto Transit case, the Supreme Court articulated a four-part test to determine if a state tax scheme unduly burdens interstate commerce. The first prong of the Complete Auto test requires a taxpayer to have nexus (i.e. a connection) with a state before it can impose its tax jurisdiction. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explained that a business had to be physically present in a state before that state could require the business to collect use tax on its behalf.
The facts in Quill Corp. are as follows: North Dakota sent a notice to Quill Corp. that it owed use tax (a companion tax to the sales tax) payments for purchases that North Dakota residents had made through Quill Corp.’s catalogue. Quill responded that it did not have nexus in North Dakota because it had no physical operations or employees and hence did not have to collect North Dakota use tax on sales made to North Dakota customers.
The Supreme Court sided with Quill, ruling that a taxpayer must have a physical presence in a state in order to require collection of sales or use tax for purchases made by in-state customers. Physical presence means offices, branches, warehouses, employees, etc. The existence of customers alone (i.e. economic presence) did not create sufficient nexus under the Commerce Clause for North Dakota to impose a sales tax collection burden on Quill Corp..
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was at least partially based on the fact that, at the time the case was decided in 1992, there were over 6,000 separate sales and use tax jurisdictions in the United States (states, localities, special tax districts, etc.) and to impose a collection obligation on a remote seller would impose a crushing burden that would severely restrict interstate commerce. Today, a movement is afoot to simplify state sales tax systems in order to lobby Congress to overturn Quill and require remote sellers to collect sales and use tax.
Update: Professor John Mikesell from the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs writes that at the time of the Quill decision, his data (compiled for a brief filed in the Quill case) shows that there were 6,277 separate sales tax jurisdictions and 4,452 separate use tax jurisdictions. Thus, there were less use tax jurisdictions than sales tax jurisdictions at the time the case was decided, though the number was still substantial.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback