WSGR logoWSGR logo
WSGR logo
  • Experience
  • People
  • Insights
  • About Us
  • Careers

  • Practice Areas
  • Industries

  • Corporate
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Patents and Innovations
  • Regulatory
  • Technology Transactions

  • Capital Markets
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate Life Sciences
  • Derivatives
  • Emerging Companies and Venture Capital
  • Employee Benefits and Compensation
  • Energy and Climate Solutions
  • Executive Advisory Program
  • Finance and Structured Finance
  • Fund Formation
  • Greater China
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Private Equity
  • Public Company Representation
  • Real Estate
  • Restructuring
  • Shareholder Engagement and Activism
  • Tax
  • U.S. Expansion
  • Wealthtech

  • Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)

  • Environmental, Social, and Governance

  • AI and Data Center Infrastructure
  • Energy Regulation and Competition
  • Project Development and M&A
  • Project Finance and Tax Credit Transactions
  • Sustainability and Decarbonization
  • Transportation Electrification

  • U.S. Expansion Library and Resources

  • Post-Grant Review
  • Trademark and Advertising

  • Antitrust Litigation
  • Arbitration
  • Board and Internal Investigations
  • Class Action Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Consumer Litigation
  • Corporate Governance Litigation
  • Employment Litigation
  • Executive Branch Updates
  • Government Investigations
  • Internet Strategy and Litigation
  • Patent Litigation
  • Securities Litigation
  • State Attorneys General
  • Supreme Court and Appellate Practice
  • Trade Secret Litigation
  • Trademark and Copyright Litigation
  • Trial
  • White Collar Crime

  • Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing
  • Antitrust and Competition
  • Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS)
  • Communications
  • Data, Privacy, and Cybersecurity
  • Export Control and Sanctions
  • FCPA and Anti-Corruption
  • FDA Regulatory, Healthcare, and Consumer Products
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Fintech and Financial Services
  • Government Contracts
  • National Security and Trade
  • Payments
  • State Attorneys General
  • Strategic Risk and Crisis Management
  • Tariffs, Customs, and Import Compliance

  • Antitrust and Intellectual Property
  • Antitrust Civil Enforcement
  • Antitrust Compliance and Business Strategy
  • Antitrust Criminal Enforcement
  • Antitrust Litigation
  • Antitrust Merger Clearance
  • European Competition Law
  • Third-Party Merger and Non-Merger Antitrust Representation

  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
  • Team Telecom

  • AI in Healthcare
  • Animal Health
  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
  • Aviation
  • Biotech
  • Blockchain and Cryptocurrency
  • Clean Energy
  • Climate and Clean Technologies
  • Communications and Networking
  • Consumer Products and Services
  • Data Storage and Cloud
  • Defense Tech
  • Diagnostics, Life Science Tools, and Deep Tech
  • Digital Health
  • Digital Media and Entertainment
  • Electronic Gaming
  • Fintech and Financial Services
  • FoodTech and AgTech
  • Global Generics
  • Internet
  • Life Sciences
  • Medical Devices
  • Mobile Devices
  • Mobility
  • NewSpace
  • Quantum Computing
  • Semiconductors
  • Software

  • Offices
  • Country Desks
  • Events
  • Community
  • Our Diversity
  • Sustainability
  • Our Values
  • Board of Directors
  • Management Team

  • Austin
  • Boston
  • Boulder
  • Brussels
  • Century City
  • Hong Kong
  • London
  • Los Angeles
  • New York
  • Palo Alto
  • Salt Lake City
  • San Diego
  • San Francisco
  • Seattle
  • Shanghai
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE

  • Law Students
  • Judicial Clerks
  • Experienced Attorneys
  • Patent Agents
  • Business Professionals
  • Alternative Legal Careers
  • Contact Recruiting
U.S. Supreme Court Rules That States May Impose Sales Tax Collection Obligations on Sellers Who Lack an In-State Physical Presence
Alerts
June 22, 2018

On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.1that a state can impose sales tax collection obligations on a seller without any physical presence in the taxing state, so long as the seller has sufficient connections with the state. In so ruling, the Court overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,2a 1992 Court decision holding that the Commerce Clause prohibited states from taxing sellers that did not have any physical presence in the taxing state.

The Court's decision in Wayfair permits states to impose sales tax collection and remission obligations on remote sellers and online retailers that have substantial nexus with the state, i.e., when the seller "avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business" in the state.3Under the South Dakota law at issue in Wayfair, a seller that delivers more than $100,000 of goods or services into the state or engages in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods and services into the state on an annual basis was required to collect and remit South Dakota sales tax.4While the Court ruled that this requirement was sufficient to establish substantial nexus with South Dakota, it left open the possibility that the South Dakota law could be challenged as being unconstitutional on other grounds.

In upholding the South Dakota law, the Court looked favorably upon certain features of South Dakota's tax system that appeared to be designed to prevent discrimination against or any unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. Such features included a safe harbor for sellers who transact only limited business in South Dakota and no retroactive obligation to remit sales tax.5Furthermore, the Court observed that South Dakota had adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which has been joined by more than 20 other states and "standardizes taxes to reduce administrative and compliance costs" for sellers.6

In light of the Court's decision in Wayfair, remote sellers and online retailers should be aware that state and local governments are likely to enforce existing legislation and regulations requiring the collection of sales tax on e-commerce or remote transactions, or to implement new legislation doing so. Remote sellers and online retailers should review their sales tax obligations and compliance procedures with their tax advisors.

For further information, please contact Greg Broome (gbroome@wsgr.com, 415-947-2139); Myra Sutanto Shen (msutantoshen@wsgr.com, 650-565-3815); Jonathan Zhu (jzhu@wsgr.com, 650-849-3388); or any member of the tax practice at Wilson Sonsini.


1South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, slip op. (June 21, 2018).
2Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
3Wayfair at 22 (quoting Polar Tankers, Inc., v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1 (2009)).
4Id. at 22-23.
5Id. at 23.
6Id.

Contributors

  • Myra A. Sutanto Shen
  • people
  • insights
  • about us
  • careers
  • Binder
  • Alumni
  • Mailing List Signup
  • Client FTP Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility
WSGR logo
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Youtube
Copyright © 2026 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. All Rights Reserved.