One Step Closer to Quill’s Downfall? South Dakota Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in 'Kill-Quill' Case

by Reed Smith

Reed Smith

The South Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. The case involves a South Dakota law enacted in 2016 that imposes an economic nexus standard to determine whether out-of-state retailers are required to collect and remit sales tax on sales made to South Dakota purchasers. This case is the first one challenging a so-called “kill-Quill” statute to reach the highest court in a state. At oral argument, South Dakota conceded that the law is unconstitutional under the standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, and requested the court to issue a decision ruling in favor of the retailers, while at the same time urging the United States Supreme Court to review the decision.

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that a state can only impose a sales and use tax collection obligation on a vendor physically present in the state.1 Since the Court decided Quill in 1992, states have lamented the restrictions that the decision placed on their ability to collect sales and use tax on sales by out-of-state retailers. These complaints have only grown louder with the rise of online retailing. In 2010, Colorado passed a use tax reporting regime that imposed reporting obligations (as opposed to tax collection obligations) on out-of-state retailers. Colorado’s law was challenged by the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”), and that challenge ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds. Although the merits of the case were not before the Court, Justice Kennedy penned a concurring opinion urging the “legal system” to “find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess.”2

South Dakota took Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in DMA seriously, and on March 22, 2016, passed S.B. 106. This law directly contravenes Quill’s physical presence rule by adopting an economic nexus standard to determine whether out-of-state retailers are required to collect and remit sales tax for sales made to South Dakota purchasers. Specifically, the law requires that an out-of-state seller must collect sales tax on its sales to South Dakota purchasers if one of two conditions is satisfied:

  1. The seller’s gross revenue from the sale of tangible personal property, any product transferred electronically, or services delivered into South Dakota exceeds $100,000; or
  2. The seller sold tangible personal property, any product transferred electronically, or services for delivery into South Dakota in 200 or more separate transactions.3
  3. The Legislature acknowledged that S.B. 106 conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Quill, and therefore stayed enforcement of the law “until the constitutionality of [S.B. 106] has been clearly established by a binding judgment, including, for example, a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States abrogating its existing doctrine, or a final judgment applicable to a particular taxpayer.”4

Procedural History

On April 28, 2016, South Dakota filed a declaratory action in South Dakota’s Sixth Judicial Circuit for a judgment that S.B. 106 imposed valid collection obligations on four out-of-state retailers:, Newegg, Systemax, and Wayfair (collectively, the “Retailers”).5 The Retailers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 22, 2017, arguing that the Sixth Judicial Circuit was bound by the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Quill. South Dakota did not disagree with the Retailers’ argument, effectively conceding the entire case. On March 6, 2017, the Sixth Judicial Circuit granted the Retailers’ Motion for Summary Judgment. South Dakota subsequently appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which in turn agreed to take the case and hold oral argument.

Today’s Oral Argument: South Dakota Concedes It Should Lose

South Dakota opened the argument by requesting the South Dakota Supreme Court to do three things:

  1. Affirm the lower court’s grant of the Retailers’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
  2. Affirm that grant expeditiously, in order to permit South Dakota to quickly file for cert at the United States Supreme Court; and
  3. Provide “a critical and important voice” urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert.

South Dakota acknowledged that “the law has not changed”—Quill is still the law of the land—so the state is not asking for a ruling in its favor. In fact, the state conceded that the lower court’s decision against South Dakota was correct and should be affirmed. The state concluded its argument in less than 10 minutes.

Preview of Argument at U.S. Supreme Court?

As one would expect, the Retailers agreed that the South Dakota Supreme Court should rule in its favor. The focus of the Retailers’ argument, then, was that the South Dakota Supreme Court should not author an opinion urging the United States Supreme Court to grant cert. The attorney for the Retailers made several arguments in favor of retaining Quill’s physical presence rule, and supported these arguments with new facts and statistics—possibly foreshadowing the focus of their argument if the U.S. Supreme Court were to grant cert.

First, the Retailers argued that important facts were not developed and included in the record at the lower court. For example, what are the compliance burdens the Retailers would face if required to comply with South Dakota’s law? How much revenue do the Retailers anticipate to lose if the physical presence rule is overturned? Without answers to these important questions, the Retailers argued, the South Dakota Supreme Court does not have the facts necessary to support the state’s cert petition.

Second, the state’s argument that Quill costs it substantial tax revenue is unproven and overstated, and even if true years ago, it is no longer true today. For example, 17 of the 18 largest online retailers collect tax in nearly every state. South Dakota relied on a 2009 study to demonstrate the magnitude of the sales tax revenue uncollected as a result of Quill, but the world has significantly changed since 2009. The Retailers noted that in 2009, collected sales tax in only five states. However, today, collects sales tax in every state that imposes such a tax. As a consequence, the Retailers argued that even if Quill presented a major limitation on state sales tax revenue in 2009, it no longer does so today.

Finally, the Retailers argued that abandoning Quill’s physical presence rule would impose substantial burdens on small and mid-size retailers. Those burdens may be so substantial that some businesses would decide not to engage in interstate commerce. For example, consider the number of taxing jurisdictions in which businesses could be required to register, collect and remit tax. In 1967—the year the U.S. Supreme Court first articulated the physical presence rule—there were approximately 2,300 taxing jurisdictions in the United States. In 1992—when the Court reaffirmed the physical presence rule in Quill—there were approximately 6,000 taxing jurisdictions. And today, there are more than 12,000 state and local taxing jurisdictions. Without Quill’s physical presence rule, a small business owner might be forced to sell locally, not nationally, simply to avoid the compliance costs of collecting, reporting and remitting tax for thousands of jurisdictions. Such a result demonstrates that the physical presence rule is necessary to create and sustain a national economy, one of the animating principles of the dormant Commerce Clause.

What’s Next?

South Dakota urged the South Dakota Supreme Court to issue an opinion “as expeditiously as practical.” It is highly likely that the South Dakota Supreme Court will affirm the lower court’s holding that S.B. 106 is unconstitutional. What is impossible to predict is whether that decision will take a position on whether the United States Supreme Court should grant cert or will remain silent. A decision urging the Court to grant cert would likely be viewed as a victory for South Dakota.

  1. 504 U.S. 298 (1992).
  2. Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, 123 S. Ct. 1124, 1135 (Kennedy, J. concurring) (2015).
  3. S.B. 106, § 9, 2016 Leg., 91st Sess. (S.D. 2016).
  4. Id. at § 8(10).
  5. Systemax was dismissed from the action May 5, 2016, because it voluntary registered and began collecting South Dakota sales tax.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith

Reed Smith on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.