Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and overturned both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess. (en)
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since reversed, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and overturned both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess. (en)
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since reversed, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and reversed both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2019-06-15 13:36:14Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:34:44Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:36:11Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:37:35Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:43:35Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 13:27:29Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-25 02:23:26Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 21:13:42Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-13 01:38:20Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 11587786 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 11885 (xsd:integer)
  • 11887 (xsd:integer)
  • 11889 (xsd:integer)
  • 11892 (xsd:integer)
  • 11897 (xsd:integer)
  • 11913 (xsd:integer)
  • 11974 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2019-05-07 06:00:37Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:34:42Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:36:09Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:37:32Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-05-04 13:43:32Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 13:27:24Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-25 02:23:19Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 21:13:37Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-13 01:38:15Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 40 (xsd:integer)
  • 41 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 895901858 (xsd:integer)
  • 954820597 (xsd:integer)
  • 954820812 (xsd:integer)
  • 954821016 (xsd:integer)
  • 954821845 (xsd:integer)
  • 998883860 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008792984 (xsd:integer)
  • 1017275112 (xsd:integer)
  • 1017489007 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. (en)
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since reversed, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner,Heidi Heitkamp (en)
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of