Supreme Court: Arguments in case to overturn “Quill” | KPMG | US

U.S. Supreme Court: Oral arguments in case to overturn “Quill”

Supreme Court: Arguments in case to overturn “Quill”

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 17, 2018, heard oral arguments in a case in which South Dakota seeks to have a state tax statute imposing economic nexus standards on remote sellers upheld by the Court.

1000

Related content

Specifically, South Dakota asked the Court to revisit and abrogate the sales and use tax physical presence nexus requirement that was upheld in Quill v. North Dakota

 

Read the transcript [PDF 725 KB] from the oral arguments on April 17 in South Dakota v. Wayfair.

KPMG observation

Tax professionals on considering the oral arguments have noted the following:

  • The potential for Quill being overturned is perhaps less certain than it was before oral arguments. 
  • Policy concerns dominated the oral arguments. Justice Sotomayor indicated that a concern was not about the specifics of the South Dakota statute, but how other states might respond if Quill were overturned.
  • The Justices seemed to be primarily concerned with three issues: (1) the costs and burdens that would be imposed on sellers if the physical presence rule were to be overturned; (2) whether states could retroactively apply an economic nexus standard; and (3) whether the issue would be better left to the U.S. Congress to resolve. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that perhaps Congress has acted through its inaction. 
  • The U.S. Solicitor General made some surprising comments. Notably, he commented that he believed a single sale into a state could create nexus for a seller. Several Justices seemed concerned by this position, and did not appear confident that Congress would act expeditiously to adopt a bright-line test should they act to overturn Quill.  The Solicitor General also indicated that the states could apply economic nexus retroactively if Quill were to be overturned. 
  • Justice Breyer in particular seemed frustrated by the contradictory information included by the parties in their briefs, such as the costs of complying with sales and use tax laws, and the accuracy of sales and use tax compliance software. Because the appeal arose from a grant of summary judgment, there was no record of facts or evidence supporting each party’s position. 
  • Much of the discussion was focused on policy and the practical considerations associated with Quill being overturned. There was a surprising lack of discussion and debate about South Dakota’s statute and constitutional law in general.  

What’s next?

At this point, there is no clear indication as to how the Court will rule, although there will likely be much speculation in the coming weeks. While the outcome is uncertain at present, it is expected that an opinion will be released before the Court recesses for the summer in late June. 

© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Connect with us

 

Request for proposal

 

Submit