Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota an entity of type: Thing
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
rdf:langString
Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner,Heidi Heitkamp
xsd:integer
11587786
xsd:integer
1123780264
rdf:langString
unanimous court ; Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter
<second>
172800.0
xsd:integer
298
xsd:integer
504
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-22
xsd:integer
1992
rdf:langString
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-26
xsd:integer
1992
rdf:langString
Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp
rdf:langString
The lack of a physical nexus in a state is sufficient grounds to exempt a corporation from having to pay sales and use taxes to a state.
rdf:langString
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. Quill modified an earlier court decision, National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, which dealt with a state imposing the duty of use tax collection on a mail order reseller. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and overturned both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess.
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Kennedy, Thomas
rdf:langString
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
rdf:langString
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
12357