Rare Book Monthly

Articles - January - 2014 Issue

Courts Reach Contrary Decisions on Collection of Sales Tax by Out-of-State Retailers

The U. S. Supreme Court building.

The U. S. Supreme Court building.

The confusion over which out-of-state companies must collect sales tax in which states was ratcheted up another level as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court non-decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from New York's highest court from Amazon and Overstock, two major online merchants headquartered in another state. By so doing, it allowed the New York decision compelling certain out-of-state merchants to collect sales tax to stand. The added confusion arises from the fact that the New York decision the Supreme Court let stand was very different from one reached by Illinois' highest court just a few weeks earlier. Under similar circumstances, the Illinois court ruled Illinois could not require out-of-state merchants to collect their sales tax. Confusing enough?

 

It has long been established law that a state cannot require an out-of-state merchant to collect their sales tax unless that merchant has a presence in their state (“nexus” is the official term). This is based on the Constitution giving the federal government exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. Generally, “nexus” was thought to mean some sort of physical presence – a store, warehouse, office, or something like that. Since most such retailers had a presence only in their home state, they could not be compelled to collect sales taxes for the other 49 states. That is why you rarely had to pay sales tax on something purchased via direct mail.

 

The states didn't much like this, but for years accepted the fact that out-of-state mail order companies could sell to their residents and not have to collect sales tax. However, the value of this lost revenue has increased tremendously over the past few years with the advent of internet sales. Today, there is much more at stake. So, the states began to look for new connections between out-of-state retailers and their states that they could claim to be sufficient “nexus” to require that retailer to collect their sales taxes. New York and Illinois both thought they found one.

 

Those states attempted to claim nexus based on the presence in their states of “affiliates,” persons who use their websites to send customers to the retailer's website. For example, a resident of New York might post a link on his/her website to Amazon in return for a commission on sales. The retailers do not look at these people as being a part of their business but as an independent outsider. Such a person does not create a presence by the company. The states passed legislation saying those persons are, in effect, part of the company and thereby make that company a state resident. Therefore, that out-of-state retailer, say Washington-based Amazon, must collect sales tax on sales made to residents of New York and Illinois.

 

In New York, the state's highest court agreed with their state's interpretation of “nexus” and demanded out-of-state retailers collect sales tax. Amazon and Overstock appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of New York's law, by declining to take up the case, they allowed that ruling to stand. The out-of-state merchants with in-state “affiliates” must collect their sales tax.

 

In Illinois, the state's highest court reached a different conclusion. While not looking at the traditional constitutional issue, the Illinois court ruled that this law violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2000. That federal law prohibits discriminatory taxes on internet transactions. The Illinois court said that requiring taxes be collected because an out-of-state company was advertising on in-state people's internet sites, but not if it was advertising on in-state television stations or newspapers, was internet discriminatory. So, based on the same federal law, certain customers in Illinois aren't subject to collection of sales taxes while residents of New York are.

 

Obviously, this doesn't make much sense. However, the Supreme Court has shown a lack of interest in wading deeper into this issue. If balance is to be achieved, it is up to Congress to enact new laws clarifying the issue. A law has been passed by the Senate which would require all out-of-state retailers (maybe you too?) to collect sales taxes providing the merchant has over $1 million in sales annually. Currently the bill is languishing in the House of Representatives and it is questionable whether the House will act upon the bill or ignore it. The states are pressuring the House to vote yes. Many consumers and anti-tax advocates are encouraging their representatives to continue to ignore the bill. Right about now, it does not look like the House is in any great hurry to deal with an issue that many construe as amounting to a tax increase.

Rare Book Monthly

  • Sotheby’s
    Book Week
    December 9-17, 2025
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 11: Darwin and Wallace. On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties..., [in:] Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Vol. III, No. 9., 1858, Darwin announces the theory of natural selection. £100,000 to £150,000.
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 11: J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, 1997, first edition, hardback issue, inscribed by the author pre-publication. £100,000 to £150,000.
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 11: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Autograph sketchleaf including a probable draft for the E flat Piano Quartet, K.493, 1786. £150,000 to £200,000.
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 12: Hooke, Robert. Micrographia: or some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies made by Magnifying Glasses. London: James Allestry for the Royal Society, 1667. $12,000 to $15,000.
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 12: Chappuzeau, Samuel. The history of jewels, first edition in English. London: T.N. for Hobart Kemp, 1671. $12,000 to $18,000.
    Sotheby’s, Dec. 12: Sowerby, James. Exotic Mineralogy, containing his most realistic mineral depictions, London: Benjamin Meredith, 1811, Arding and Merrett, 1817. $5,000 to $7,000.
  • Rare Book Hub is now mobile-friendly!
  • Swann
    Maps & Atlases, Natural History & Color Plate Books
    December 9, 2025
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 156: Cornelis de Jode, Americae pars Borealis, double-page engraved map of North America, Antwerp, 1593.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 206: John and Alexander Walker, Map of the United States, London and Liverpool, 1827.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 223: Abraham Ortelius, Typus Orbis Terrarum, hand-colored double-page engraved world map, Antwerp, 1575.
    Swann
    Maps & Atlases, Natural History & Color Plate Books
    December 9, 2025
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 233: Aaron Arrowsmith, Chart of the World, oversize engraved map on 8 sheets, London, 1790 (circa 1800).
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 239: Fielding Lucas, A General Atlas, 81 engraved maps and diagrams, Baltimore, 1823.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 240: Anthony Finley, A New American Atlas, 15 maps engraved by james hamilton young on 14 double-page sheets, Philadelphia, 1826.
    Swann
    Maps & Atlases, Natural History & Color Plate Books
    December 9, 2025
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 263: John Bachmann, Panorama of the Seat of War, portfolio of 4 double-page chromolithographed panoramic maps, New York, 1861.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 265: Sebastian Münster, Cosmographei, Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri, 1558.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 271: Abraham Ortelius, Epitome Theatri Orteliani, Antwerp: Johann Baptist Vrients, 1601.
    Swann
    Maps & Atlases, Natural History & Color Plate Books
    December 9, 2025
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 283: Joris van Spilbergen, Speculum Orientalis Occidentalisque Indiae, Leiden: Nicolaus van Geelkercken for Jodocus Hondius, 1619.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 285: Levinus Hulsius, Achtzehender Theil der Newen Welt, 14 engraved folding maps, Frankfurt: Johann Frederick Weiss, 1623.
    Swann, Dec. 9: Lot 341: John James Audubon, Carolina Parrot, Plate 26, London, 1827.

Article Search

Archived Articles