Young Research & Publishing Inc.

Investment Research Since 1978

Disclosure

  • About Us
    • Contributors
    • Archives
    • The Final Richard C. Young’s Intelligence Report
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
    • Dick Young’s Research Key: Anecdotal Evidence Gathering
    • Crisis at Vanguard
  • Investment Analysis
    • Bonds
    • Currencies and Gold
    • Dividend Investing
    • ETFs & Funds
    • Investment Strategy
    • Retirement Investing
    • Stocks
    • The Efficient Frontier
  • Investment Counsel
  • Dynamic Maximizers®
  • Retirement Compounders®
  • Free Email Signup
  • Dick Young’s Safe America

Landmark E-Commerce Decision by the Supreme Court

June 21, 2018 By Jeremy Jones, CFA

Finished and occupied in 1935, the design of the Supreme Court draws upon the classical Roman temple form, making it a definitive example of neoclassical architecture.

Today the Supreme Court has decided states are allowed to collect taxes from online retailers. Ten states already have laws requiring out of state sellers to notify buyers of taxes owed and to inform states of unpaid sales taxes. Retailers opposed the laws on the grounds that they had no presence in the states where taxes were being levied.

In a 1992 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that companies with no physical presence in a state didn’t need to collect that state’s sales taxes. But now that online sales account for 10% of shopping, the old rule doesn’t work anymore.

The change in Supreme Court precedent should benefit smaller local businesses by creating a level playing field. Large online retailers are already collecting taxes on most purchases, but some of their smaller affiliates are not, so offers through popular portals may see higher prices at checkout.

USA Today’s Richard Wolf reports:

The decision, which overturns an earlier Supreme Court precedent, will boost state revenues at the expense of consumers and sellers who have avoided sales taxes in the past.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, saying the decision should be left to Congress, and was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The high court ruled in 1967 and again in 1992 that companies without a physical presence in a state did not have to collect sales taxes. But those rulings applied mostly to mail-order catalog companies. In 1992, Amazon had not yet begun selling books out of Jeff Bezos’ garage.

In its challenge, South Dakota noted that “times have changed,” with online sales growing at four times the rate of total retail sales. As a result, state and local governments in 45 states lose billions of dollars annually in taxes. (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon do not have sales taxes.)

In response, online sellers Wayfair, Overstock.com and Newegg, said online retailers could face some 12,000 local tax jurisdictions if the Supreme Court sided with the states. They warned of economic chaos — at least until Congress steps in,

When the court ruled in 1967 and 1992 that Illinois and North Dakota could not squeeze sales taxes from sellers with no presence in those states, there wasn’t nearly as much at stake. Now consumers do nearly 10% of their shopping online, a share that will grow exponentially in the future.

Read more here.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

You Might Also Like:

  • Apple Loses at the Supreme Court
  • India Targets E-Commerce Giants with new Rules
  • E-Commerce: Not Just for the West Anymore
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
Jeremy Jones, CFA
Jeremy Jones, CFA, CFP® is the Director of Research at Young Research & Publishing Inc., and the Chief Investment Officer at Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. was ranked #10 in CNBC's 2019 Financial Advisor Top 100. Jeremy is also a contributing editor of youngresearch.com.
Latest posts by Jeremy Jones, CFA (see all)
  • TIPS Not the Best Inflation Hedge Today - April 19, 2021
  • Turkey Bans Bitcoin - April 16, 2021
  • How Amazon Violates Anti-Trust Rules - April 15, 2021

Search Young Research

Most Popular

  • It’s as Simple as 4%? No, Not Anymore
  • Is Inflation Imminent? Prepare Now
  • Your Port Against a Storm.
  • Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) vs. Wellington (VWELX): Which Fund is Best?
  • Long Live the Dividend King
  • Inflation? Yes.
  • Fidelity Investments #1: Hires 4,000 Focuses on YOU
  • Banks Prepare for Boom
  • The Highest Yielding Dow Stocks
  • The Power of a Compound Interest Table

Don’t Miss

Default Risk Among the Many Concerns with Annuities

Risk and Reward: An Efficient Frontier

How to be a Billionaire: Proven Strategies from the Titans of Wealth

Could this Be the Vanguard GNMA Winning Edge?

Cryptocosm and Life After Google

Warning: Avoid Mutual Fund Year End Distributions

Is Gold a Good Long-term Investment?

How to Invest in Gold

Vanguard Wellington (VWELX): The Original Balanced Fund

What is the Best Gold ETF for Investing and Trading?

Procter & Gamble (PG) Stock: The Only True Dividend King

The Dividend King of the North

You’ll Love This if You’re Dreaming of an Active Retirement Life

RSS The Latest at Richardcyoung.com

  • Landmen Shift Focus to Solar and Wind Leases
  • Key West Greetings From the Thirsty Mermaid
  • The Vanguard Wellesley Way
  • Toilet Paper and SPAM: What More You Can Do?
  • Incentivizing People to Stay Home?
  • The Government Cannot Constitutionally Interfere With Gun Ownership
  • French Wine Weather Disaster Worse than 1991, 1997, 2003
  • Key West Breaking News from Dick Young
  • A Pitiful, Helpless Giant?
  • What Happens When Even Logic and Facts Can’t Persuade the Left?

About Us

  • About Young Research
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Our Partners

  • Richard C. Young & Co.
  • Richardcyoung.com

Copyright © 2021 | Terms & Conditions

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.