Reuters reports that the US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on Tuesday that could “determine whether states can force out-of-state online retailers to collect sales taxes.”
The state of South Dakota is asking the court to reverse a precedent set by the Court in 1992, when it ruled that “states cannot require retailers to collect state sales taxes on purchases unless the businesses have a ‘physical presence’ in the state … The state, appealing a lower court decision that favored Wayfair Inc., Overstock.com Inc. and Newegg Inc, is being supported by President Donald Trump’s administration.”
If the Court sides with South Dakota, the story says, it “could help small brick-and-mortar retailers compete with online rivals while funneling up to $18 billion into the coffers of the affected states, according to a 2017 federal report.”
The Reuters piece notes that the case is being heard against the backdrop of an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and Amazon; President Trump has accused Amazon both of taking advantage of the US Postal Service and paying too little for its delivery service, and of not paying enough tax.
Amazon is not involved in the South Dakota case.
The state of South Dakota is asking the court to reverse a precedent set by the Court in 1992, when it ruled that “states cannot require retailers to collect state sales taxes on purchases unless the businesses have a ‘physical presence’ in the state … The state, appealing a lower court decision that favored Wayfair Inc., Overstock.com Inc. and Newegg Inc, is being supported by President Donald Trump’s administration.”
If the Court sides with South Dakota, the story says, it “could help small brick-and-mortar retailers compete with online rivals while funneling up to $18 billion into the coffers of the affected states, according to a 2017 federal report.”
The Reuters piece notes that the case is being heard against the backdrop of an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and Amazon; President Trump has accused Amazon both of taking advantage of the US Postal Service and paying too little for its delivery service, and of not paying enough tax.
Amazon is not involved in the South Dakota case.
- KC's View:
