| Quill Corp. v. North Dakota | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 22, 1992 Decided May 26, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp |
| Citations | 504 U.S. 298 (more) 112 S. Ct. 1904; 119 L. Ed. 2d 91; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3123; 60 U.S.L.W. 4423; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4458; 92 Daily Journal DAR 7142; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 269 |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by unanimous court (parts I, II, III); Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter (part IV) |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 | |
Overruled by | |
| South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967) (in part) | |
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.[1]
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,[2] 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.