Case Study Assignment
Please select a case from the list of “Case Options for Case Study Assignment” posted in this module.
Once you have made your selection, review the case opinion and identify the relevant elements below.
For your reference, you can review the information regarding case briefs which begins on page 1-29 of
chapter one in your textbook. While there is more than one way to brief a case, please use the format I
have provided below. The paper should be at least one page and no more than two pages in length,
single spaced.
The analysis should include the following elements:
1. Case name: Include the names of the parties such as Brown v. Board of Education.
2. The name of the court deciding the case: For example, The U.S Supreme Court.
3. Case citation: An example of a citation is as follows: 552 U.S. 661 (1987). The citation includes the
volume and page number of the legal reporter where the case is published. It also includes the year that
the case was decided by the court. Please see page 29 of your textbook for further examples.
4. Key facts: State the relevant and significant aspects of the case briefly. Tell a short story. The facts
should identify the plaintiff and defendant, report the events leading up to the lawsuit and state the relief
the plaintiff is seeking.
Provide a brief description of the procedural history. This refers to the decisions of the lower court(s)
before the case arrived at the court that is issuing the decision.
5. Issue: This is the legal question the court is being asked to address. Sometimes, there are many
issues. Focus on the primary issue(s).
Analyze whether these issues are substantive and/or procedural.
6. Decision: State how the court resolved the issue. An example of a decision would be the lower court
decision is reversed or affirmed.
7. Reasoning: This section explains why the court made this decision. Summarize the reasons the court
ruled this way.
8. Key Terms: Were you able to recognize any foundational terms from Chapter One or Two that were
discussed or applied in the case decision? Please explain.
9. Critical Analysis: After analyzing the case, do you agree or disagree with the decision? Please
explain. Finally, state how the issue in this case relates to the business environment.
1|Page
The assignment will be reviewed using Turnitin, a software program which checks the originality of an
assignment. When summarizing each section of the assignment, please paraphrase the information.
Imagine that you are summarizing the case to someone who does not have a great deal of knowledge
about the law. If you take any of the language directly from the court’s decision, then it must be in quotes.
You do not need to use any sources other than the case opinion itself. If you do, you must cite the source
and include a works cited. Keep in mind that while you need to summarize some information from the
case, the most significant aspect of this assignment is your analysis of the decision.
As far as formatting is concerned, use the elements of the case assignment as headings. For example,
the case name and key facts would be headings. You can then state the information for the case under
each of the respective headings.
This assignment is due by 11:59 pm on Sunday, 11/21. I look forward to reading your assignments!
2|Page
Case Study Assignment
Please select a case from the list of “Case Options for Case Study Assignment” posted in this module.
Once you have made your selection, review the case opinion and identify the relevant elements below.
For your reference, you can review the information regarding case briefs which begins on page 1-29 of
chapter one in your textbook. While there is more than one way to brief a case, please use the format I
have provided below. The paper should be at least one page and no more than two pages in length,
single spaced.
The analysis should include the following elements:
1. Case name: Include the names of the parties such as Brown v. Board of Education.
2. The name of the court deciding the case: For example, The U.S Supreme Court.
3. Case citation: An example of a citation is as follows: 552 U.S. 661 (1987). The citation includes the
volume and page number of the legal reporter where the case is published. It also includes the year that
the case was decided by the court. Please see page 29 of your textbook for further examples.
4. Key facts: State the relevant and significant aspects of the case briefly. Tell a short story. The facts
should identify the plaintiff and defendant, report the events leading up to the lawsuit and state the relief
the plaintiff is seeking.
Provide a brief description of the procedural history. This refers to the decisions of the lower court(s)
before the case arrived at the court that is issuing the decision.
5. Issue: This is the legal question the court is being asked to address. Sometimes, there are many
issues. Focus on the primary issue(s).
Analyze whether these issues are substantive and/or procedural.
6. Decision: State how the court resolved the issue. An example of a decision would be the lower court
decision is reversed or affirmed.
7. Reasoning: This section explains why the court made this decision. Summarize the reasons the court
ruled this way.
8. Key Terms: Were you able to recognize any foundational terms from Chapter One or Two that were
discussed or applied in the case decision? Please explain.
9. Critical Analysis: After analyzing the case, do you agree or disagree with the decision? Please
explain. Finally, state how the issue in this case relates to the business environment.
1|Page
The assignment will be reviewed using Turnitin, a software program which checks the originality of an
assignment. When summarizing each section of the assignment, please paraphrase the information.
Imagine that you are summarizing the case to someone who does not have a great deal of knowledge
about the law. If you take any of the language directly from the court’s decision, then it must be in quotes.
You do not need to use any sources other than the case opinion itself. If you do, you must cite the source
and include a works cited. Keep in mind that while you need to summarize some information from the
case, the most significant aspect of this assignment is your analysis of the decision.
As far as formatting is concerned, use the elements of the case assignment as headings. For example,
the case name and key facts would be headings. You can then state the information for the case under
each of the respective headings.
This assignment is due by 11:59 pm on Sunday, 11/21. I look forward to reading your assignments!
2|Page
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)
The State of South Dakota (like most states) requires companies to collect a sales tax on goods and services sold in the state and remit the
money to the state. That practice is fairly straightforward for businesses that sell their products through physical locations in the state (brick-and-
mortar stores, for example), when a customer pays at the point of sale. But online retailers with no physical location in the state had argued that
states could not force them to collect the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past, most recently in a case called Quill Corp. v. North
Dakota (504 U.S. 298 (1992)), that states could not require a business to collect the state’s sales tax if that business had no physical presence in
the state. That ruling was based on the Commerce Clause: Without a strong connection between the business and the state (such as a physical
presence), the tax collection requirement imposed an undue burden on the free flow of interstate commerce.
South Dakota sued Wayfair and other online retailers, seeking to require them to collect its sales tax from online sales to customers in South
Dakota. It argued that the “physical presence” rule was depriving them of needed tax dollars and should be overturned. Because of binding
precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the Quill case and a case before it called Bellas Hess), the retailers won on their motions for
summary judgment in the trial court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear South Dakota’s
appeal
Kennedy, Justice
All concede that taxing the sales in question here is lawful. The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held responsible for
its payment, and this turns on a proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
Under this Court’s decisions in Bellas Hess and Quill, South Dakota may not require a business to collect its sales tax if the business
lacks a physical presence in the State. Without that physical presence, South Dakota instead must rely on its residents to pay the use
tax owed on their purchases from out-of-state sellers. “[T]he impracticability of [this] collection from the multitude of individual
purchasers is obvious.” National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 555 (1977). And consumer compliance
rates are notoriously low. … It is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause the States to lose between $8 and $33 billion every year. .
… In South Dakota alone, the Department of Revenue estimates revenue loss at $48 to $58 million annually. Particularly because
South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund
essential services. Those taxes account for over 60 percent of its general fund.
In 2016, South Dakota confronted the serious inequity Quill imposes by enacting S. 106–”An Act to provide for the collection of sales
taxes from certain remote sellers, to establish certain Legislative findings, and to declare an emergency.” The legislature found that the
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
harm … through the loss of critical funding for state and local services.” $ 8(1). … The Act applies only to sellers that, on an annual
basis, deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery
of goods or services into the State.
Respondents Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., are merchants with no employees or real estate in South Dakota..
.. Each easily meets the minimum sales or transactions requirement of the Act, but none collects South Dakota sales tax.
II.
The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. … Although
the Commerce Clause is written as an affirmative grant of authority to Congress, this Court has long held that in some instances it
imposes limitations on the States absent congressional action.
Modern precedents rest upon two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on
interstate commerce.
[A] State “may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause.”
[Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 285 (1977)]. After all, “interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of
state taxes.” D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 31 (1988).
In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of III., 386 U.S. 753, 754-55 (1967),] … [t]he Court held that … [unless a]
retailer maintained a physical presence such as “retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State,” the State lacked the power to
require that retailer to collect a local use tax. Ibid.
In 1992, the Court reexamined the physical presence rule in Quill.
III
The physical presence rule has “been the target of criticism over many years from many quarters.” Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 814
F.3d 1129, 1148, 1150-1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)…. Quill created an inefficient “online sales tax loophole” that
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
appropriate to the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth.” Hellerstein, Deconstructing the Debate Over State Taxation of Electronic
Commerce, 13 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 549, 553 (2000). Each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic
reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first
formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
All agree that South Dakota has the authority to tax these transactions. … The central dispute is whether South Dakota may require
remote sellers to collect and remit the tax without some additional connection to the State. … There just must be “a substantial
nexus with the taxing State.”
Physical presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus. The Quill majority expressed concern that without the physical
presence rule “a state tax might unduly burden interstate commerce” by subjecting retailers to tax collection obligations in thousands
of different taxing jurisdictions. But the administrative costs of compliance, especially in the modern economy with its Internet
technology, are largely unrelated to whether a company happens to have a physical presence in a State. For example, a business with
one salesperson in each State must collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction in which goods are delivered; but a business with 500
salespersons in one central location and a website accessible in every State need not collect sales taxes on otherwise identical
nationwide sales.
Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to
remote sellers. Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the
widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own. … In effect, Quill has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for
businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State’s consumers-something that
has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
Worse still, the rule produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States. . . . Rejecting the physical presence rule is
necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this Court’s precedents.
Modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence defined in Quill.
Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, “a business may be present in a
State in a meaningful way without” that presence “being physical in the traditional sense of the term.” Quill’s physical presence rule
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of State, who must remit the tax;
to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the States that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax, a tax many States for many years have
considered an indispensable source for raising revenue.
In essence, respondents ask this Court to retain a rule that allows their customers to escape payment of sales taxes-taxes that are
essential to create and secure the active market they supply with goods and services. An example may suffice. Wayfair offers to sell a
vast selection of furnishings. Its advertising seeks to create an image of beautiful, peaceful homes, but it also says that “[o]ne of the
best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.” Brief for Petitioner 55. What Wayfair ignores in
its subtle offer to assist in tax evasion is that creating a dream home assumes solvent state and local governments. State taxes fund the
police and fire departments that protect the homes containing their customers’ furniture and ensure goods are safely delivered;
maintain the public roads and municipal services that allow communication with and access to customers; support the “sound local
banking institutions to support credit transactions [and] courts to ensure collection of the purchase price,” Quill, 504 U.S., at 328
(opinion of White, J.); and help create the “climate of consumer confidence” that facilitates sales.
IV
##
Though Quill was wrong on its own terms when it was decided in since then the Internet revolution has made its earlier error all
the more egregious and harmful. … In 1992, less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access. Today that number is about 89
percent. When it decided Quill, the Court could not have envisioned a world in which the world’s largest retailer would be a remote
seller.
The Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy. In 1992, mail-order sales in the United
States totaled $180 billion. Last year, e-commerce retail sales alone were estimated at $453.5 billion.
This expansion has also increased the revenue shortfall faced by States seeking to collect their sales and use taxes. In 1992, it was
estimated that the States were losing between $694 million and $3 billion per year in sales tax revenues as a result of the physical
presence rule. Now estimates range from $8 to $33 billion.
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
remote retailers go so far as to advertise sales as tax free.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incorrect. The Court’s decisions in
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of II., 386 U.S. 753 (1967),
should be, and now are, overruled.
V
In the absence of Quill and Bellas Hess, the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applies to an activity with
a substantial nexus with the taxing State. “[S]uch a nexus is established when the taxpayer (or collector] ‘avails itself of the
substantial privilege of carrying on business’ in that jurisdiction.” Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1, 11 (2009).
Here, the nexus is clearly sufficient based on both the economic and virtual contacts respondents have with the State. The Act applies
only to sellers that deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into South Dakota or engage in 200 or more separate transactions
for the delivery of goods and services into the State on an annual basis. This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the
seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota. And respondents are large, national
companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is
satisfied in this case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)
The State of South Dakota (like most states) requires companies to collect a sales tax on goods and services sold in the state and remit the
money to the state. That practice is fairly straightforward for businesses that sell their products through physical locations in the state (brick-and-
mortar stores, for example), when a customer pays at the point of sale. But online retailers with no physical location in the state had argued that
states could not force them to collect the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past, most recently in a case called Quill Corp. v. North
Dakota (504 U.S. 298 (1992)), that states could not require a business to collect the state’s sales tax if that business had no physical presence in
the state. That ruling was based on the Commerce Clause: Without a strong connection between the business and the state (such as a physical
presence), the tax collection requirement imposed an undue burden on the free flow of interstate commerce.
South Dakota sued Wayfair and other online retailers, seeking to require them to collect its sales tax from online sales to customers in South
Dakota. It argued that the “physical presence” rule was depriving them of needed tax dollars and should be overturned. Because of binding
precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the Quill case and a case before it called Bellas Hess), the retailers won on their motions for
summary judgment in the trial court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear South Dakota’s
appeal
Kennedy, Justice
All concede that taxing the sales in question here is lawful. The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held responsible for
its payment, and this turns on a proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
Under this Court’s decisions in Bellas Hess and Quill, South Dakota may not require a business to collect its sales tax if the business
lacks a physical presence in the State. Without that physical presence, South Dakota instead must rely on its residents to pay the use
tax owed on their purchases from out-of-state sellers. “[T]he impracticability of [this] collection from the multitude of individual
purchasers is obvious.” National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 555 (1977). And consumer compliance
rates are notoriously low. … It is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause the States to lose between $8 and $33 billion every year. .
… In South Dakota alone, the Department of Revenue estimates revenue loss at $48 to $58 million annually. Particularly because
South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund
essential services. Those taxes account for over 60 percent of its general fund.
In 2016, South Dakota confronted the serious inequity Quill imposes by enacting S. 106–”An Act to provide for the collection of sales
taxes from certain remote sellers, to establish certain Legislative findings, and to declare an emergency.” The legislature found that the
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
harm … through the loss of critical funding for state and local services.” $ 8(1). … The Act applies only to sellers that, on an annual
basis, deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery
of goods or services into the State.
Respondents Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., are merchants with no employees or real estate in South Dakota..
.. Each easily meets the minimum sales or transactions requirement of the Act, but none collects South Dakota sales tax.
II.
The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. … Although
the Commerce Clause is written as an affirmative grant of authority to Congress, this Court has long held that in some instances it
imposes limitations on the States absent congressional action.
Modern precedents rest upon two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on
interstate commerce.
[A] State “may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause.”
[Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 285 (1977)]. After all, “interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of
state taxes.” D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 31 (1988).
In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of III., 386 U.S. 753, 754-55 (1967),] … [t]he Court held that … [unless a]
retailer maintained a physical presence such as “retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State,” the State lacked the power to
require that retailer to collect a local use tax. Ibid.
In 1992, the Court reexamined the physical presence rule in Quill.
III
The physical presence rule has “been the target of criticism over many years from many quarters.” Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 814
F.3d 1129, 1148, 1150-1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)…. Quill created an inefficient “online sales tax loophole” that
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
appropriate to the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth.” Hellerstein, Deconstructing the Debate Over State Taxation of Electronic
Commerce, 13 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 549, 553 (2000). Each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic
reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first
formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
All agree that South Dakota has the authority to tax these transactions. … The central dispute is whether South Dakota may require
remote sellers to collect and remit the tax without some additional connection to the State. … There just must be “a substantial
nexus with the taxing State.”
Physical presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus. The Quill majority expressed concern that without the physical
presence rule “a state tax might unduly burden interstate commerce” by subjecting retailers to tax collection obligations in thousands
of different taxing jurisdictions. But the administrative costs of compliance, especially in the modern economy with its Internet
technology, are largely unrelated to whether a company happens to have a physical presence in a State. For example, a business with
one salesperson in each State must collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction in which goods are delivered; but a business with 500
salespersons in one central location and a website accessible in every State need not collect sales taxes on otherwise identical
nationwide sales.
Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to
remote sellers. Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the
widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own. … In effect, Quill has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for
businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State’s consumers-something that
has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
Worse still, the rule produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States. . . . Rejecting the physical presence rule is
necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this Court’s precedents.
Modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence defined in Quill.
Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, “a business may be present in a
State in a meaningful way without” that presence “being physical in the traditional sense of the term.” Quill’s physical presence rule
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of State, who must remit the tax;
to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the States that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax, a tax many States for many years have
considered an indispensable source for raising revenue.
In essence, respondents ask this Court to retain a rule that allows their customers to escape payment of sales taxes-taxes that are
essential to create and secure the active market they supply with goods and services. An example may suffice. Wayfair offers to sell a
vast selection of furnishings. Its advertising seeks to create an image of beautiful, peaceful homes, but it also says that “[o]ne of the
best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.” Brief for Petitioner 55. What Wayfair ignores in
its subtle offer to assist in tax evasion is that creating a dream home assumes solvent state and local governments. State taxes fund the
police and fire departments that protect the homes containing their customers’ furniture and ensure goods are safely delivered;
maintain the public roads and municipal services that allow communication with and access to customers; support the “sound local
banking institutions to support credit transactions [and] courts to ensure collection of the purchase price,” Quill, 504 U.S., at 328
(opinion of White, J.); and help create the “climate of consumer confidence” that facilitates sales.
IV
##
Though Quill was wrong on its own terms when it was decided in since then the Internet revolution has made its earlier error all
the more egregious and harmful. … In 1992, less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access. Today that number is about 89
percent. When it decided Quill, the Court could not have envisioned a world in which the world’s largest retailer would be a remote
seller.
The Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy. In 1992, mail-order sales in the United
States totaled $180 billion. Last year, e-commerce retail sales alone were estimated at $453.5 billion.
This expansion has also increased the revenue shortfall faced by States seeking to collect their sales and use taxes. In 1992, it was
estimated that the States were losing between $694 million and $3 billion per year in sales tax revenues as a result of the physical
presence rule. Now estimates range from $8 to $33 billion.
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Please select a case from the list of “Case Options for Case Study Assignment” posted in this module.
Once you have made your selection, review the case opinion and identify the relevant elements below.
For your reference, you can review the information regarding case briefs which begins on page 1-29 of
chapter one in your textbook. While there is more than one way to brief a case, please use the format I
have provided below. The paper should be at least one page and no more than two pages in length,
single spaced.
The analysis should include the following elements:
1. Case name: Include the names of the parties such as Brown v. Board of Education.
2. The name of the court deciding the case: For example, The U.S Supreme Court.
3. Case citation: An example of a citation is as follows: 552 U.S. 661 (1987). The citation includes the
volume and page number of the legal reporter where the case is published. It also includes the year that
the case was decided by the court. Please see page 29 of your textbook for further examples.
4. Key facts: State the relevant and significant aspects of the case briefly. Tell a short story. The facts
should identify the plaintiff and defendant, report the events leading up to the lawsuit and state the relief
the plaintiff is seeking.
Provide a brief description of the procedural history. This refers to the decisions of the lower court(s)
before the case arrived at the court that is issuing the decision.
5. Issue: This is the legal question the court is being asked to address. Sometimes, there are many
issues. Focus on the primary issue(s).
Analyze whether these issues are substantive and/or procedural.
6. Decision: State how the court resolved the issue. An example of a decision would be the lower court
decision is reversed or affirmed.
7. Reasoning: This section explains why the court made this decision. Summarize the reasons the court
ruled this way.
8. Key Terms: Were you able to recognize any foundational terms from Chapter One or Two that were
discussed or applied in the case decision? Please explain.
9. Critical Analysis: After analyzing the case, do you agree or disagree with the decision? Please
explain. Finally, state how the issue in this case relates to the business environment.
1|Page
The assignment will be reviewed using Turnitin, a software program which checks the originality of an
assignment. When summarizing each section of the assignment, please paraphrase the information.
Imagine that you are summarizing the case to someone who does not have a great deal of knowledge
about the law. If you take any of the language directly from the court’s decision, then it must be in quotes.
You do not need to use any sources other than the case opinion itself. If you do, you must cite the source
and include a works cited. Keep in mind that while you need to summarize some information from the
case, the most significant aspect of this assignment is your analysis of the decision.
As far as formatting is concerned, use the elements of the case assignment as headings. For example,
the case name and key facts would be headings. You can then state the information for the case under
each of the respective headings.
This assignment is due by 11:59 pm on Sunday, 11/21. I look forward to reading your assignments!
2|Page
Case Study Assignment
Please select a case from the list of “Case Options for Case Study Assignment” posted in this module.
Once you have made your selection, review the case opinion and identify the relevant elements below.
For your reference, you can review the information regarding case briefs which begins on page 1-29 of
chapter one in your textbook. While there is more than one way to brief a case, please use the format I
have provided below. The paper should be at least one page and no more than two pages in length,
single spaced.
The analysis should include the following elements:
1. Case name: Include the names of the parties such as Brown v. Board of Education.
2. The name of the court deciding the case: For example, The U.S Supreme Court.
3. Case citation: An example of a citation is as follows: 552 U.S. 661 (1987). The citation includes the
volume and page number of the legal reporter where the case is published. It also includes the year that
the case was decided by the court. Please see page 29 of your textbook for further examples.
4. Key facts: State the relevant and significant aspects of the case briefly. Tell a short story. The facts
should identify the plaintiff and defendant, report the events leading up to the lawsuit and state the relief
the plaintiff is seeking.
Provide a brief description of the procedural history. This refers to the decisions of the lower court(s)
before the case arrived at the court that is issuing the decision.
5. Issue: This is the legal question the court is being asked to address. Sometimes, there are many
issues. Focus on the primary issue(s).
Analyze whether these issues are substantive and/or procedural.
6. Decision: State how the court resolved the issue. An example of a decision would be the lower court
decision is reversed or affirmed.
7. Reasoning: This section explains why the court made this decision. Summarize the reasons the court
ruled this way.
8. Key Terms: Were you able to recognize any foundational terms from Chapter One or Two that were
discussed or applied in the case decision? Please explain.
9. Critical Analysis: After analyzing the case, do you agree or disagree with the decision? Please
explain. Finally, state how the issue in this case relates to the business environment.
1|Page
The assignment will be reviewed using Turnitin, a software program which checks the originality of an
assignment. When summarizing each section of the assignment, please paraphrase the information.
Imagine that you are summarizing the case to someone who does not have a great deal of knowledge
about the law. If you take any of the language directly from the court’s decision, then it must be in quotes.
You do not need to use any sources other than the case opinion itself. If you do, you must cite the source
and include a works cited. Keep in mind that while you need to summarize some information from the
case, the most significant aspect of this assignment is your analysis of the decision.
As far as formatting is concerned, use the elements of the case assignment as headings. For example,
the case name and key facts would be headings. You can then state the information for the case under
each of the respective headings.
This assignment is due by 11:59 pm on Sunday, 11/21. I look forward to reading your assignments!
2|Page
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)
The State of South Dakota (like most states) requires companies to collect a sales tax on goods and services sold in the state and remit the
money to the state. That practice is fairly straightforward for businesses that sell their products through physical locations in the state (brick-and-
mortar stores, for example), when a customer pays at the point of sale. But online retailers with no physical location in the state had argued that
states could not force them to collect the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past, most recently in a case called Quill Corp. v. North
Dakota (504 U.S. 298 (1992)), that states could not require a business to collect the state’s sales tax if that business had no physical presence in
the state. That ruling was based on the Commerce Clause: Without a strong connection between the business and the state (such as a physical
presence), the tax collection requirement imposed an undue burden on the free flow of interstate commerce.
South Dakota sued Wayfair and other online retailers, seeking to require them to collect its sales tax from online sales to customers in South
Dakota. It argued that the “physical presence” rule was depriving them of needed tax dollars and should be overturned. Because of binding
precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the Quill case and a case before it called Bellas Hess), the retailers won on their motions for
summary judgment in the trial court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear South Dakota’s
appeal
Kennedy, Justice
All concede that taxing the sales in question here is lawful. The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held responsible for
its payment, and this turns on a proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
Under this Court’s decisions in Bellas Hess and Quill, South Dakota may not require a business to collect its sales tax if the business
lacks a physical presence in the State. Without that physical presence, South Dakota instead must rely on its residents to pay the use
tax owed on their purchases from out-of-state sellers. “[T]he impracticability of [this] collection from the multitude of individual
purchasers is obvious.” National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 555 (1977). And consumer compliance
rates are notoriously low. … It is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause the States to lose between $8 and $33 billion every year. .
… In South Dakota alone, the Department of Revenue estimates revenue loss at $48 to $58 million annually. Particularly because
South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund
essential services. Those taxes account for over 60 percent of its general fund.
In 2016, South Dakota confronted the serious inequity Quill imposes by enacting S. 106–”An Act to provide for the collection of sales
taxes from certain remote sellers, to establish certain Legislative findings, and to declare an emergency.” The legislature found that the
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
harm … through the loss of critical funding for state and local services.” $ 8(1). … The Act applies only to sellers that, on an annual
basis, deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery
of goods or services into the State.
Respondents Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., are merchants with no employees or real estate in South Dakota..
.. Each easily meets the minimum sales or transactions requirement of the Act, but none collects South Dakota sales tax.
II.
The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. … Although
the Commerce Clause is written as an affirmative grant of authority to Congress, this Court has long held that in some instances it
imposes limitations on the States absent congressional action.
Modern precedents rest upon two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on
interstate commerce.
[A] State “may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause.”
[Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 285 (1977)]. After all, “interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of
state taxes.” D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 31 (1988).
In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of III., 386 U.S. 753, 754-55 (1967),] … [t]he Court held that … [unless a]
retailer maintained a physical presence such as “retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State,” the State lacked the power to
require that retailer to collect a local use tax. Ibid.
In 1992, the Court reexamined the physical presence rule in Quill.
III
The physical presence rule has “been the target of criticism over many years from many quarters.” Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 814
F.3d 1129, 1148, 1150-1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)…. Quill created an inefficient “online sales tax loophole” that
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
appropriate to the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth.” Hellerstein, Deconstructing the Debate Over State Taxation of Electronic
Commerce, 13 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 549, 553 (2000). Each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic
reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first
formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
All agree that South Dakota has the authority to tax these transactions. … The central dispute is whether South Dakota may require
remote sellers to collect and remit the tax without some additional connection to the State. … There just must be “a substantial
nexus with the taxing State.”
Physical presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus. The Quill majority expressed concern that without the physical
presence rule “a state tax might unduly burden interstate commerce” by subjecting retailers to tax collection obligations in thousands
of different taxing jurisdictions. But the administrative costs of compliance, especially in the modern economy with its Internet
technology, are largely unrelated to whether a company happens to have a physical presence in a State. For example, a business with
one salesperson in each State must collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction in which goods are delivered; but a business with 500
salespersons in one central location and a website accessible in every State need not collect sales taxes on otherwise identical
nationwide sales.
Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to
remote sellers. Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the
widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own. … In effect, Quill has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for
businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State’s consumers-something that
has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
Worse still, the rule produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States. . . . Rejecting the physical presence rule is
necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this Court’s precedents.
Modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence defined in Quill.
Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, “a business may be present in a
State in a meaningful way without” that presence “being physical in the traditional sense of the term.” Quill’s physical presence rule
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of State, who must remit the tax;
to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the States that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax, a tax many States for many years have
considered an indispensable source for raising revenue.
In essence, respondents ask this Court to retain a rule that allows their customers to escape payment of sales taxes-taxes that are
essential to create and secure the active market they supply with goods and services. An example may suffice. Wayfair offers to sell a
vast selection of furnishings. Its advertising seeks to create an image of beautiful, peaceful homes, but it also says that “[o]ne of the
best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.” Brief for Petitioner 55. What Wayfair ignores in
its subtle offer to assist in tax evasion is that creating a dream home assumes solvent state and local governments. State taxes fund the
police and fire departments that protect the homes containing their customers’ furniture and ensure goods are safely delivered;
maintain the public roads and municipal services that allow communication with and access to customers; support the “sound local
banking institutions to support credit transactions [and] courts to ensure collection of the purchase price,” Quill, 504 U.S., at 328
(opinion of White, J.); and help create the “climate of consumer confidence” that facilitates sales.
IV
##
Though Quill was wrong on its own terms when it was decided in since then the Internet revolution has made its earlier error all
the more egregious and harmful. … In 1992, less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access. Today that number is about 89
percent. When it decided Quill, the Court could not have envisioned a world in which the world’s largest retailer would be a remote
seller.
The Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy. In 1992, mail-order sales in the United
States totaled $180 billion. Last year, e-commerce retail sales alone were estimated at $453.5 billion.
This expansion has also increased the revenue shortfall faced by States seeking to collect their sales and use taxes. In 1992, it was
estimated that the States were losing between $694 million and $3 billion per year in sales tax revenues as a result of the physical
presence rule. Now estimates range from $8 to $33 billion.
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
remote retailers go so far as to advertise sales as tax free.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incorrect. The Court’s decisions in
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of II., 386 U.S. 753 (1967),
should be, and now are, overruled.
V
In the absence of Quill and Bellas Hess, the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applies to an activity with
a substantial nexus with the taxing State. “[S]uch a nexus is established when the taxpayer (or collector] ‘avails itself of the
substantial privilege of carrying on business’ in that jurisdiction.” Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1, 11 (2009).
Here, the nexus is clearly sufficient based on both the economic and virtual contacts respondents have with the State. The Act applies
only to sellers that deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into South Dakota or engage in 200 or more separate transactions
for the delivery of goods and services into the State on an annual basis. This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the
seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota. And respondents are large, national
companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is
satisfied in this case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)
The State of South Dakota (like most states) requires companies to collect a sales tax on goods and services sold in the state and remit the
money to the state. That practice is fairly straightforward for businesses that sell their products through physical locations in the state (brick-and-
mortar stores, for example), when a customer pays at the point of sale. But online retailers with no physical location in the state had argued that
states could not force them to collect the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past, most recently in a case called Quill Corp. v. North
Dakota (504 U.S. 298 (1992)), that states could not require a business to collect the state’s sales tax if that business had no physical presence in
the state. That ruling was based on the Commerce Clause: Without a strong connection between the business and the state (such as a physical
presence), the tax collection requirement imposed an undue burden on the free flow of interstate commerce.
South Dakota sued Wayfair and other online retailers, seeking to require them to collect its sales tax from online sales to customers in South
Dakota. It argued that the “physical presence” rule was depriving them of needed tax dollars and should be overturned. Because of binding
precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the Quill case and a case before it called Bellas Hess), the retailers won on their motions for
summary judgment in the trial court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear South Dakota’s
appeal
Kennedy, Justice
All concede that taxing the sales in question here is lawful. The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held responsible for
its payment, and this turns on a proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
Under this Court’s decisions in Bellas Hess and Quill, South Dakota may not require a business to collect its sales tax if the business
lacks a physical presence in the State. Without that physical presence, South Dakota instead must rely on its residents to pay the use
tax owed on their purchases from out-of-state sellers. “[T]he impracticability of [this] collection from the multitude of individual
purchasers is obvious.” National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 555 (1977). And consumer compliance
rates are notoriously low. … It is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause the States to lose between $8 and $33 billion every year. .
… In South Dakota alone, the Department of Revenue estimates revenue loss at $48 to $58 million annually. Particularly because
South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund
essential services. Those taxes account for over 60 percent of its general fund.
In 2016, South Dakota confronted the serious inequity Quill imposes by enacting S. 106–”An Act to provide for the collection of sales
taxes from certain remote sellers, to establish certain Legislative findings, and to declare an emergency.” The legislature found that the
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was “seriously eroding the sales tax base” and “causing revenue losses and imminent
harm … through the loss of critical funding for state and local services.” $ 8(1). … The Act applies only to sellers that, on an annual
basis, deliver more than $ 100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery
of goods or services into the State.
Respondents Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., are merchants with no employees or real estate in South Dakota..
.. Each easily meets the minimum sales or transactions requirement of the Act, but none collects South Dakota sales tax.
II.
The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. … Although
the Commerce Clause is written as an affirmative grant of authority to Congress, this Court has long held that in some instances it
imposes limitations on the States absent congressional action.
Modern precedents rest upon two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on
interstate commerce.
[A] State “may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause.”
[Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 285 (1977)]. After all, “interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of
state taxes.” D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 31 (1988).
In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of III., 386 U.S. 753, 754-55 (1967),] … [t]he Court held that … [unless a]
retailer maintained a physical presence such as “retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State,” the State lacked the power to
require that retailer to collect a local use tax. Ibid.
In 1992, the Court reexamined the physical presence rule in Quill.
III
The physical presence rule has “been the target of criticism over many years from many quarters.” Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 814
F.3d 1129, 1148, 1150-1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)…. Quill created an inefficient “online sales tax loophole” that
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. And “while nexus rules are clearly necessary,” the Court “should focus on rules that are
appropriate to the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth.” Hellerstein, Deconstructing the Debate Over State Taxation of Electronic
Commerce, 13 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 549, 553 (2000). Each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic
reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first
formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
All agree that South Dakota has the authority to tax these transactions. … The central dispute is whether South Dakota may require
remote sellers to collect and remit the tax without some additional connection to the State. … There just must be “a substantial
nexus with the taxing State.”
Physical presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus. The Quill majority expressed concern that without the physical
presence rule “a state tax might unduly burden interstate commerce” by subjecting retailers to tax collection obligations in thousands
of different taxing jurisdictions. But the administrative costs of compliance, especially in the modern economy with its Internet
technology, are largely unrelated to whether a company happens to have a physical presence in a State. For example, a business with
one salesperson in each State must collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction in which goods are delivered; but a business with 500
salespersons in one central location and a website accessible in every State need not collect sales taxes on otherwise identical
nationwide sales.
Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to
remote sellers. Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the
widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own. … In effect, Quill has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for
businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State’s consumers-something that
has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
Worse still, the rule produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States. . . . Rejecting the physical presence rule is
necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this Court’s precedents.
Modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence defined in Quill.
Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, “a business may be present in a
State in a meaningful way without” that presence “being physical in the traditional sense of the term.” Quill’s physical presence rule
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
intrudes on States’ reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit
a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of State, who must remit the tax;
to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the States that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax, a tax many States for many years have
considered an indispensable source for raising revenue.
In essence, respondents ask this Court to retain a rule that allows their customers to escape payment of sales taxes-taxes that are
essential to create and secure the active market they supply with goods and services. An example may suffice. Wayfair offers to sell a
vast selection of furnishings. Its advertising seeks to create an image of beautiful, peaceful homes, but it also says that “[o]ne of the
best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.” Brief for Petitioner 55. What Wayfair ignores in
its subtle offer to assist in tax evasion is that creating a dream home assumes solvent state and local governments. State taxes fund the
police and fire departments that protect the homes containing their customers’ furniture and ensure goods are safely delivered;
maintain the public roads and municipal services that allow communication with and access to customers; support the “sound local
banking institutions to support credit transactions [and] courts to ensure collection of the purchase price,” Quill, 504 U.S., at 328
(opinion of White, J.); and help create the “climate of consumer confidence” that facilitates sales.
IV
##
Though Quill was wrong on its own terms when it was decided in since then the Internet revolution has made its earlier error all
the more egregious and harmful. … In 1992, less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access. Today that number is about 89
percent. When it decided Quill, the Court could not have envisioned a world in which the world’s largest retailer would be a remote
seller.
The Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy. In 1992, mail-order sales in the United
States totaled $180 billion. Last year, e-commerce retail sales alone were estimated at $453.5 billion.
This expansion has also increased the revenue shortfall faced by States seeking to collect their sales and use taxes. In 1992, it was
estimated that the States were losing between $694 million and $3 billion per year in sales tax revenues as a result of the physical
presence rule. Now estimates range from $8 to $33 billion.
Here, the tax distortion created by Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail to comply with lawful use taxes. Some
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
