{"id":222,"date":"2018-01-19T11:51:12","date_gmt":"2018-01-19T15:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/?p=222"},"modified":"2018-01-19T11:51:12","modified_gmt":"2018-01-19T15:51:12","slug":"supreme-court-to-review-sales-tax-physical-presence-standard-more-states-pass-reporting-laws-on-remote-sellers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2018\/01\/19\/supreme-court-to-review-sales-tax-physical-presence-standard-more-states-pass-reporting-laws-on-remote-sellers\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to Review Sales Tax Physical Presence Standard; More States Pass Reporting Laws on Remote Sellers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court of the United States has accepted for review the case of\u00a0<em>South Dakota v. Wayfair<\/em>,\u00a0<em>Inc., et al,<\/em>\u00a0in which the state of South Dakota has challenged the continued viability of its 1992\u00a0<em>Quill Corp. v. North Dakota<\/em>\u00a0decision that required some physical presence of a remote seller in a state before a state could impose its sales tax collection obligations on the seller. The Supreme Court in 1992 held it was up to Congress to change the test. In this new case, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that South Dakota\u2019s attempt to legislatively override <i>Quill<\/i> was in violation of the law. By hearing the case, the U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether to change the law or continue to allow the physical presence standard to stand, until and unless the Congress decides to change it. This decision could have far-reaching effects on interstate commerce, especially impacting internet sellers.<\/p>\n<p>To read the full text of this\u00a0<em>Alert<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/supreme_court_review_sales_tax_standard_more_states_pass_reporting_laws_remote_sellers_0118.html\">please visit the Duane Morris website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court of the United States has accepted for review the case of\u00a0South Dakota v. Wayfair,\u00a0Inc., et al,\u00a0in which the state of South Dakota has challenged the continued viability of its 1992\u00a0Quill Corp. v. North Dakota\u00a0decision that required some physical presence of a remote seller in a state before a state could impose its &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2018\/01\/19\/supreme-court-to-review-sales-tax-physical-presence-standard-more-states-pass-reporting-laws-on-remote-sellers\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Supreme Court to Review Sales Tax Physical Presence Standard; More States Pass Reporting Laws on Remote Sellers&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[180,181,179,75],"ppma_author":[238],"class_list":["post-222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-quill-corp-v-north-dakota","tag-sales-tax","tag-south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc","tag-supreme-court"],"authors":[{"term_id":238,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}