How Did the Supreme Court Change Online Sales Taxation?

ISSUE BRIEF 06.26.18 How Did the Supreme Court Change Online Sales Taxation?

Joyce Beebe, Ph.D., Fellow, Center for Public Finance

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled presence in the state;5 this is the result of that states can impose sales taxes on out- a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, Quill Corp. of-state retailers, even if they do not have a v. North Dakota.6 In 2017, South Dakota’s physical presence in the state. The decision Supreme Court struck down the state’s ends months of suspense and attention on digital sales tax law (S.B. 106); South Dakota the future of e-commerce. In July 2017, a then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme House subcommittee heard testimony on Court, in hopes of overturning Quill. the right of states to collect sales taxes Although earlier estimates varied,7 a from out-of-state merchants that do not recent U.S. Government Accountability Office have a physical presence in the destination (GAO) report indicated that based on current state.1 Several states, eager to defend their law, state and local governments were right to tax remote sellers, had passed already able to collect most remote sales tax “notice and reporting” laws, which require revenues that would be owed.8 Most large remote sellers to either collect sales taxes or remote sellers are either established retailers submit an annual report of each consumer’s that already have physical stores in many purchases to the state government.2 Some states, or have entered into agreements states have targeted marketplace providers with state governments to voluntarily collect such as Amazon and eBay, which previously sales taxes regardless of physical presence. have not collected all sales taxes from However, the study showed that if states In a split 5-4 decision, third-party sellers.3 Not absent from the could require out-of-state merchants e-commerce debate is President Donald without a physical presence to collect sales the U.S. Supreme Court Trump, who in March 2018 posted a tweet taxes, states would be able to expand their overturned Quill and accusing Amazon of treating the U.S. Postal collectible sales tax revenue by $8 to $13 ruled that states can Service as its “delivery boy” and of paying billion in aggregate for 2017.9 For states that charge out-of-state 4 little taxes to state and local governments. do not have personal income taxes and rely retailers sales tax even This issue brief reviews the implications heavily on sales taxes, such as Texas, the of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the revenue gain is close to the $1 billion range.10 if they do not have a legislative developments in online sales The report further provided segregated physical presence in taxation over the last 12 months. estimates showing that collectible rates and the state. associated revenue gains vary significantly by different types of sellers. For internet RECAP: UNDERSTANDING THE KEY retailers, the current collectible tax revenue ISSUES AT STAKE can reach 86 percent, indicating an additional 14 percent increase in collectible Prior to the ruling, states could not impose revenue with the reversal of Quill. The a sales tax collection obligation on remote estimates for marketplace sellers show a retailers that do not have a physical RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 06.26.18

completely opposite picture: only 14 percent to only traditional mail order retailers whose of revenue was collectible under Quill; single connection to a state is by mail or overturning the ruling likely will generate common carrier.14 large potential revenue gains. In fact, half of Another viewpoint Quill challengers the potentially collectible revenue gains ($4 expressed was that local brick-and-mortar to $6 billion) would come from being able to businesses are treated unfairly because of collect from marketplace sellers. the inconsistent tax collection standards Not surprisingly, both proponents between local retailers and remote sellers. and opponents of Quill drew support from They also pointed to states’ increasing fiscal the report: Quill advocates have said that deficits, which have been worsened by the since most sales tax revenues are already inability to collect taxes from remote sellers. in the tax net, the issue is more about The supporters of taxing remote sellers collection. Because large retailers are generally disagreed that compliance costs already collecting the taxes, changing the are prohibitively high, pointing to the current law means compliance burdens extensive use of computer technology by would mostly fall on small- and medium- merchants to reduce the burdens and the sized enterprises (SMEs). Quill challengers longstanding simplification effort by states interpreted the results differently—i.e., to expand the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax based on the perspective of SMEs—arguing Agreement (SSUTA).15 Under the agreement, that the lost revenue jeopardizes jobs collection and administration laws have at SMEs in local communities. They also been simplified and harmonized across pointed out that although remote sellers member states. Tax bases, administrative benefit from roads and local infrastructure requirements, exemptions, and tax rates to reach their customers, they fail to pay are standardized; states also function as sales taxes that fund such state and local the single central authority for all sub-state government services. level taxes. The court concurred A viewpoint related to the compliance with Quill opponents’ cost issue deferred to another Supreme arguments that the A LONG-AWAITED DIRECT CHALLENGE Court ruling, which indicates that when a state regulates a business that engages in physical presence rule The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear South interstate commerce, incidental burdens Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al., in January. gave remote sellers an may be unavoidable; Quill opponents argued Prior to the mid-April oral argument, various advantage over brick- that South Dakota’s law imposing sales stakeholders collectively filed 40 amici curiae and use tax collection requirements on and-mortar businesses (friend of the court) briefs, offering their remote sellers constitutes such an incidental and deviated from the views, expertise, and insights on the issue. burden.16 Stated differently, the fact that a economic reality of the business is conducting interstate commerce Arguments to Overturn Quill current online sales does not relieve it from tax collection environment. The argument most frequently cited by Quill duties, which add to the cost of doing opponents was the rapid advancement business.17 Like growing pains, as a business of internet commerce and the significant successfully expands, its compliance change of the business environment. They costs increase. The issue is whether the argued that the physical presence rule obligations are excessively burdensome is outdated,11 especially considering the relative to the benefits, and whether the fact that the Quill ruling was based not on burdens are substantially different across its own constitutional merit, but on the states. Quill opponents have said that the principle of stare decisis12 that governs benefits outweigh the costs, and that the another 1967 Supreme Court ruling involving uneven compliance burden across states mail order retailers.13 The Bellas Hess case can be resolved by replacing the physical was ruled 50 years ago, before the invention presence rule with a balancing test: one of the internet. As such, U.S. Solicitor state’s high compliance burden could be General Noel Francisco recommended that subject to a higher threshold than another the Supreme Court limit Quill’s application state’s low burden system.18 2 HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT CHANGE ONLINE SALES TAXATION?

Finally, they contended that the Illinois, New York, and Texas—are not end of Quill would not necessarily harm members of the SSUTA. Thus, Quill supporters interstate commerce because safeguards contended that the current sales and use tax against detrimental effects such as reduced compliance procedure is still complicated interstate business activities and overly and non-uniform. There is still a significant burdensome compliance procedures are need to simplify the process and reduce the still in place. For example, Congress still compliance burden for companies. possesses constitutional rights to regulate Some Quill proponents pointed out interstate commerce; it could enact that although South Dakota’s statute legislation to protect interstate sellers.19 applies prospectively, a complete overturn In addition, the lower courts can certainly of Quill may mean that some states could act to prevent states from imposing undue retroactively impose the sales and use tax burdens on interstate sellers.20 collection obligation on remote sellers.24 States are expected Eight states have enacted economic to remove the Arguments to Uphold Quill presence rules that contradict Quill’s notice and reporting The arguments in support of Quill largely physical presence requirement, and these requirements, focused on compliance costs, thresholds, states are seeking to enforce their rules a welcome development to various degrees. Another 20 states and retroactivity. on efficiency and Quill advocates argued that state have statutes, regulations, or policies governments have generally overstated that require retailers to collect sales privacy protection the effectiveness of sales and use tax and use taxes to the extent permitted grounds. The compliance software, and that compliance by the Constitution. Overturning Quill marketplace provider costs remain high for SMEs.21 A brief pointed without giving specific guidance about retroactivity may prompt these states to rules are also expected to the GAO study’s conclusion that such to increase in the businesses often face the largest compliance start retroactive assessment, which could cost barriers if states impose a remote sales potentially lead to double taxation. coming months. tax collection burden, and some merchants Finally, some proponents of Quill raised may simply decide not to expand.22 The concerns that the potential threshold declined business activities would eventually standard for triggering sales tax collection lead to lower tax revenue. Physical presence, could be too low. South Dakota’s law on the other hand, represents a bright line applies to remote merchants who have rule and provides certainty and confidence 200 transactions or more than $100,000 to small businesses regarding their sales and in in-state sales. Some briefs argued that use tax obligations.23 Congress is in a better position than courts The GAO study also stated that to make economic judgments on threshold 25 software-related expenses include initial issues. Some also pointed out that set-up costs, annual licensing fees, validating South Dakota’s threshold was not administrative costs, and options for within the scope of the question presented premium services such as preparing or for the Supreme Court review. automatically filing sales tax returns. The costs associated with initial installation CONGRESSIONAL VIEWPOINTS and on-going administration could be ON QUILL substantially more than licensing itself. In addition to software-related costs, On the legislative side, a congressional businesses could experience additional audit hearing for the No Regulation Without and assessment costs due to increased Representation Act, which sought to exposure to more tax jurisdictions. prevent states from taxing sellers that lack Furthermore, because there are only a physical presence, was held in July 2017.26 24 SSUTA members, the agreement really This proposal established thresholds for de has not gained nationwide recognition. minimis physical presence, which closely Certain large states in terms of tax revenue resembles Quill. Although the hearing invited and population—such as California, Florida, both supporters and opponents of Quill to 3 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 06.26.18

testify, it ended with an impasse and the The last brief, submitted by a group proposal did not advance any further. of senators and representatives, similarly Three groups of senators and argued that Congress is the best institution representatives joined the waves of amici to address the issue.29 Their concern was curiae briefs and wrote to the Supreme that if Quill were overturned, states would Court; two groups requested that the court no longer have any incentive to simplify preserve Quill, while one group advocated the sales and use tax collection system for for overturning it. However, despite different interstate sales. opinions on Quill’s future, all three groups argued that Congress has the authority and should be the party to resolve the issue. STATE PERSPECTIVES The authors of the first brief, filed in Some state representatives expressed early March, stated that the South Dakota disagreement about Congress’ leadership law establishes that merchants have to role in addressing the issue and its need for have a significant connection to the state The court stated more time to reach a conclusion. Bills have (“substantial nexus,” in this case referring that several features been introduced in Congress in almost every to the number of transactions and sales legislative session since 2001, but there has of the South Dakota amounts requirements) in order to meet been no substantial progress on online sales rules, including the collection obligations.27 They argued that taxation.30 South Dakota therefore argued Quill is inequitable and arbitrary because revenue and number of that Congress lacks the incentive to take it favors a particular way of conducting transactions thresholds, quick actions under the status quo. The business. Such preference, in turn, compels public would view Congress allowing states lack of retroactivity, sellers to plan around and avoid establishing a to collect sales taxes from remote sellers as and reduced physical presence, therefore forcing state tax authorizing new or greater tax collections, agencies to expend their resources on either administrative and even though the federal government itself demonstrating that sellers have a physical compliance burdens, would not get to use the revenue.31 As presence or enacting notice and reporting such, the state representatives argued, the are desirable. laws, a second-best approach that may Supreme Court was the best party to resolve or may not lead to collection. The senators the deadlock. suggested that overturning Quill will not leave remote sellers with excessive burdens, generally for the reasons discussed above. SUPREME COURT DECISION32 Finally, the brief stated that Congress is ready to act when needed, and that its In a split 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court inaction so far had been due to the fact that overruled both Quill and Bellas Hess, using the Founding Fathers deliberately organized strong words to indicate that the physical the government to deter hasty actions presence rule is unsound and incorrect. by Congress. It concurred with the petitioner’s main In April, another group of senators filed arguments that the physical presence a brief with the Supreme Court and asked it rule gave remote sellers an advantage to uphold Quill.28 They reiterated the notion over brick-and-mortar businesses and that the Constitution intentionally structured deviated from the economic reality of the the legislative branch so that it would not current online sales environment. The move too quickly, and Congress is merely ruling described Quill as a court-created meeting the expectation of the Constitution tax shelter that produces an incentive for in taking more time to resolve the issue of businesses to avoid establishing a physical taxing remote sales. The senators opposed presence in multiple states, which prevents the overturn of Quill, as such action would business expansions that would otherwise ruin ongoing congressional negotiation to be efficient. find workable solutions; adhering to Quill, The opinion of the court, unsurprisingly they argued, would allow Congress time delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, to exercise its expertise and authority to further criticized the physical presence rule regulate interstate commerce. as an extraordinary imposition on states’ 4 HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT CHANGE ONLINE SALES TAXATION?

authority to collect taxes and perform public the issue. However, although the court’s services. This rule essentially helps remote decision did not preclude Congress from sellers’ customers evade a lawful tax, which continuing to pursue a workable legislative unfairly shifts the tax burden to consumers solution, it recognized that the ruling may who buy from competitors with a physical have interrupted Congress’s progress presence in the state. made to date. The dissenting opinion also The court opinion considered the issue of cited the statistics from the GAO study, stare decisis and concluded that states’ valid but interpreted its findings differently, exercise of their taxing power outweighs indicating that the erosion of the sales tax the value of protecting precedence. Because base created by Quill is not significant and is the physical presence rule was the result receding with time. of an inappropriate ruling by the court, it Finally, contrary to the court opinion, is the proper entity to correct it. However, the dissenting opinion argued that the Congress maintains the authority to regulate development of compliance software is still interstate commerce; when Congress in its infancy instead of at a mature stage. exercises its power, the legislation can create The compliance costs for SMEs could remain new rules that govern interstate commerce. high, and the opinion left open an invitation With the overturn of Quill and Bellas to Congress to address issues such as Hess, the court reverted back to the retroactivity and compliance costs. basic “substantial nexus” test, which is established “when the taxpayer avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying SOME ISSUES REMAIN on business.”33 Because the respondents Now that Quill gets a “complete burial clearly have economic and virtual contacts it justly deserves”34 from the Supreme with the state, a nexus is established. Court ruling, some developments could There are several issues the court be expected, whereas other issues remain acknowledged but did not formally address, relevant for future discussion. including compliance costs, retroactivity, After the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and complexity. The opinion states that gave the Colorado notice and reporting The dissenting compliance costs are largely unrelated statute its blessing in 2016, nine other opinion argued to physical presence and therefore, the states adopted similar rules.35 With Quill’s physical presence rule is a poor proxy for that Congress is the overturn, these laws became obsolete. It is measuring compliance costs. It believes better party to resolve therefore expected that states will rewrite the use of software will alleviate most the laws to remove the notice and reporting the e-commerce of the burdens, and Congress may also requirements to alleviate burdens from taxation issue, and pass legislation to address the compliance remote merchants. On efficiency and privacy cost-related problems. Finally, although that the development grounds, this is a welcome development. the possibility that states may seek to of software is not Because the intent of the laws was to retroactively apply the court’s ruling and make the compliance process deliberately mature enough to the complexity of the sales tax system onerous so that out-of-state merchants substantially reduce are critical issues that could be harmful to would collect the tax rather than complying interstate commerce, they were not within compliance costs. with the notice and reporting requirements, the scope of issues presented to the court. this approach is an inefficient alternative The dissenting opinion, drafted by Chief and may not lead to revenue collection. Justice John Roberts, reiterated several key Additionally, if state revenue agencies decide concerns mentioned by the respondents to collect use taxes based on the reports, to the South Dakota case. It emphasized there may be difficulties matching sales data the value of the stare decisis doctrine with taxpayer information because there is and said the court should not overturn its currently no specific taxpayer identification precedents lightly. This opinion agreed such as a Social Security number.36 with the three amici curiae briefs filed by Some observers have also raised privacy the congressional members, arguing that concerns, and courts have previously struck Congress is the better party to resolve 5 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 06.26.18

down certain overly excessive disclosure taxes. The marketplace provider issue requirements on privacy grounds.37 is not within the scope of the Supreme With the Supreme Court’s blessing, Court case, but it is generally anticipated many states are expected to enact their own that marketplace provider legislation will legislation, incorporating key elements or the increase substantially in the coming months. entirety of the South Dakota law. The court did signal that several features of the South Dakota rules, including the revenue and CONCLUSION number of transactions thresholds, lack of The Supreme Court decision is certainly a retroactivity, and reduced administrative and necessary and welcome milestone. Prior compliance burdens, are desirable because to the ruling, states had been developing they did not discriminate against or impose creative patchworks to bypass or undue burdens on interstate commerce. redefine physical presence, which were Although it is not immediately clear whether not necessarily in the best interest of all existing types of digital nexuses are interstate commerce. The ruling puts these considered equivalent to South Dakota’s The next key workarounds to bed, and states can now economic nexus, the court did comment that development is whether focus on promoting interstate commerce. the “economic and virtual contacts” in the The immediate and favorable development Congress will soon underlying case is clearly sufficient. would be the elimination of state notice and act to address critical On the other hand, the level of reporting requirements, which had issues on compliance costs, and to what extent issues such as reducing efficiency and privacy grounds. States are current sales and use collection practices compliance costs and expected to enact their own laws requiring are streamlined, remain crucial and remote sellers to collect sales taxes, taking simplifying the tax unsolved issues. Both sides of the South into consideration features of the South collection process, Dakota case insisted that their arguments Dakota law. Additionally, although not regarding compliance costs, which range which will promote directly addressed by the court, states may from extremely low to extremely high, interstate commerce be more confident in pursuing legislation were accurate. Although the court decided targeting marketplace providers. and advance economic to side with South Dakota, the sales and The most important future development development. use tax compliance system can be simpler, lies in the issues not addressed in the which would in turn enhance interstate court ruling, regarding compliance costs commerce. The best way to accomplish this, and simplification of the sales and use the Supreme Court indicated, is to bring in tax collection process. Congressional Congress as the facilitator. action to address these areas remains The second remaining issue is the crucial—all parties agree that Congress has marketplace provider field. Over the last the constitutional authority to regulate year, through several news articles as well interstate commerce. A more streamlined, as tweets by Trump, it became apparent simplified, and uniform compliance process that although Amazon has been collecting would further promote interstate commerce state sales taxes nationwide, it does not and advance economic development. collect all sales taxes on behalf of third- party sellers when it simply functions as a “marketplace provider” or “facilitator.” ENDNOTES While Amazon has become the dominant e-commerce merchant, other platform 1. No Regulation Without Representation providers such as eBay and Etsy are subject Act: Hearing on H.R. 2887, July 25, 2017, to similar considerations. Several states, before the House Judiciary Committee, including Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Island, and Washington, passed laws Commercial, and Antitrust Law, http://bit. requiring marketplace providers to collect ly/2K2VLDR. sales taxes on the sellers’ behalf, whereas 2. These states include Georgia, California’s state revenue department goes Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and directly after marketplace sellers for unpaid Washington. 6 HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT CHANGE ONLINE SALES TAXATION?

3. These states include Minnesota, 11. Brief amici curiae of Colorado and 40 Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington. other states, et al., March 5, 2018, http://bit. 4. Donald Trump, “Unlike others, ly/2McjBcP. they pay little or no taxes to state & 12. Stare decisis, or precedential value, local governments, use our Postal means that weight should be given to System as their Delivery Boy, and are previous court opinions. putting many thousands of retailers out 13. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. of business!” Twitter, March 29, 2018, Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967). https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/ 14. Brief amici curiae of United States, status/979326715272065024. March 5, 2018, http://bit.ly/2MgAtiz. 5. For background information, see 15. Brief amici curiae of Streamlined Joyce Beebe, E-Commerce: Recent Sales Tax Governing Board, Inc., March 5, Developments in State Taxation of 2018, http://bit.ly/2tjdAns. Online Sales, Issue brief no. 07.13.17, Rice 16. Brief amici curiae of United States. University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, March 5, 2018, citing Pike v. Bruce Church, Houston, Texas, http://bit.ly/2yyQvSS. Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970). Similar arguments 6. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. are also made in (1) Brief amici curiae of 298 (1992). Four United States Senators, March 5, 2018, 7. For example, a publication led by http://bit.ly/2MRiIYv, and (2) Brief amici National Conference of State Legislatures curiae of Tax Foundation, March 5, 2018, indicated that such revenue loss amounts to http://bit.ly/2MfIYKH. $25.9 billion in 2015. See “Uncollected Sales 17. Brief amici curiae of Colorado and 40 and Use Tax from Remote Sales: Revised other states, et al., March 5, 2018. Figures (March 2017),” Washington, D.C.: 18. Ryan Prete, “Trump’s Solicitor National Conference of State Legislatures; General to High Court: Undo Digital Tax Law,” New York: International Council of Shopping Bloomberg BNA, March 7, 2018, http://bit. Centers, http://bit.ly/2tC1i9t. An update ly/2IgAYa8. of this estimate for 2018 increases the 19. Brief amici curiae of United States, potential revenue loss to $33.9 billion. See March 5, 2018. (1) Brief of petitioner South Dakota, February 20. Brief amici curiae of Four United 26, 2018, http://bit.ly/2KhEQwo, and (2) States Senators, March 5, 2018. International Council of Shopping Centers: 21. Brief of respondents Wayfair, Inc. et Case for Fairness, http://bit.ly/2Kev91O. al., March 28, 2018, http://bit.ly/2yv58GS. 8. United States Government 22. Brief amici curiae of State Accountability Office, “Sales Taxes: States of Montana, April 4, 2018, http://bit. Could Gain Revenue from Expanded ly/2Mht6rc. Authority, but Businesses Are Likely to 23. Brief amici curiae of State of Experience Compliance Costs (GAO-18- New Hampshire, April 4, 2018, http://bit. 114),” November 2017. This brief limits the ly/2yyJfq3. discussion to business-to-consumer (B2C) 24. For examples, see (1) Brief of sales, not including business-to-business respondents Wayfair, Inc. et al., March (B2B) sales. The potential revenue gains 28, 2018, (2) Brief amici curiae of State of are very limited on the B2B side because Montana, April 4, 2018, and (3) Brief amici compliance costs have been high. curiae of Tax Executives Institute, Inc., April 9. The report’s methodology focuses on 4, 2018, http://bit.ly/2K93kF2. “collectible tax revenue,” which is what states 25. See (1) Brief of respondents Wayfair, have the authority to collect. The analysis did Inc. et al., March 28, 2018, and (2) Brief amici not examine actual compliance rates. curiae of State of Montana, April 4, 2018. 10. See GAO report, Appendix II. The low 26. No Regulation Without estimate for Texas’ potential revenue gains Representation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2887, in 2017 is $763 million and the high estimate July 25, 2017, before the House Judiciary is $1.2 billion. Committee, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law. 7 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 06.26.18

27. Brief amici curiae of Four United States Senators, Addendum, March 5, 2018. AUTHOR 28. Brief amici curiae of United States Joyce Beebe, Ph.D., is a fellow in public Senators Ted Cruz, Steve Daines, and Mike finance at the Baker Institute. Her Lee, April 4, 2018, http://bit.ly/2Kazy2w. research focuses on tax reforms in the 29. Brief amici curiae of House Judiciary U.S. and computable general equilibrium Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, et al., modeling of the effects of tax reforms. Her April 4, 2018, http://bit.ly/2Mdk6Do. other research interests include wealth 30. Brief amici curiae of Four United accumulation over a person’s lifetime and, States Senators, March 5, 2018. See generally, how public policies influence Addendum for a list of bills introduced. decision-making. 31. Brief of petitioner South Dakota, February 26, 2018. 32. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al, 585 U.S. (2018). See http://bit.ly/2K0bQdb. 33. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977). 34. Brief amici curiae of Colorado and 40 other states, et al., March 5, 2018. 35. Brief amici curiae of Tax Foundation, March 5, 2018. 36. United States GAO, “Sales Taxes: States Could Gain Revenue from Expanded Authority, but Businesses Are Likely to Experience Compliance Costs (GAO-18-114),” November 2017. 37. Amazon.com LLC v Lay, 758 F. Supp. See more issue briefs at: 2d 1154 (see also Brief amici curiae of Tax www.bakerinstitute.org/issue-briefs Foundation, March 5, 2018).

This publication was written by a researcher (or researchers) who participated in a Baker Institute project. Wherever feasible, this research is reviewed by outside experts before it is released. However, the views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Cite as: Beebe, Joyce. 2018. How Did the Supreme Court Change Online Sales Taxation? Issue brief no. 06.26.18. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas.