Home      Login

Abstract: 

In Quill v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that states could not compel out-of-state businesses that had no physical presence in the jurisdiction to collect sales and use taxes from state customers. It remains unclear whether this physical-presence rule applies to other kinds of taxes, however. This article explores that question by focusing on Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, a recent case in which the Ohio Supreme Court debated whether Quill’s physical-presence rule applies to a business-privilege tax. The article also considers why the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to address the matter since Quill and suggests the need for some authoritative resolution that either harmonizes the status of different kinds of state taxes or explains why different rules might be appropriate for different taxes.

Keywords: state taxation, Dormant Commerce Clause, physical presence, U.S. Supreme Court, Quill v. North Dakota, Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa

Affiliations:  1: Case Western Reserve University.