四名美国参议员对南达科他州诉Wayfair案的案情摘要

Darien Shanske, A. Morrison
{"title":"四名美国参议员对南达科他州诉Wayfair案的案情摘要","authors":"Darien Shanske, A. Morrison","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3170470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amici agree with petitioner that the physical presence rule established by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), should be overturned. As Justice Kennedy has explained, the decision was “questionable even when decided, [and] now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier.” Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 135 S.Ct. 1124, 1135 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). \nThis brief primarily addresses the important question of what will happen if this Court overturns Quill. There is no doubt that the respondents and their amici will argue that vast confusion will ensue if the states are freed from the bright-line rule of Quill. That will not happen for (at least) three reasons. First, there is little evidence that the states would rush to enact a welter of burdensome use tax collection laws and much evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the same technological innovations that have made the adverse impacts of the Quill rule so problematic for States like South Dakota have also driven down the cost of compliance, thereby reducing the likelihood that state laws can impose significant costs on remote sellers. \nSecond, should this Court overturn the physical presence rule established in Quill, that does not mean that this Court, or courts generally, will not be able to protect interstate sellers. There are a number of doctrines that remain to guard against potential abuses. First, should a state or locality impose obligations on remote sellers that do not apply to local vendors, then such laws are virtually per se invalid. Second, should a state or locality impose financially significant obligations on remote sellers, then Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970), adequately protects them if the “burden imposed [by state laws] is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” \nThird, Congress is standing by to act should states overstep. The Quill rule reversed the default set up by the Constitution under which states are free to act as sovereigns unless Congress acts. If Quill is overturned and the constitutional default restored, amici believe that Congress is fully prepared to act, especially if the problem to be solved is overreaching by a few states or by certain local tax schemes that collectively place excessive burdens on out-of-state sellers. Furthermore, with the Quill tax shelter no longer available, all the states and interstate sellers will favor establishing standard rules of practice in order to facilitate orderly and efficient revenue collection. In this regard, it is notable that commercial interstate interests have had considerable success in persuading Congress to pass balanced laws that have served to streamline their interactions with state and local revenue authorities while protecting legitimate state interests.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief of Four US Senators in South Dakota v. Wayfair (Merits)\",\"authors\":\"Darien Shanske, A. Morrison\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3170470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Amici agree with petitioner that the physical presence rule established by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), should be overturned. As Justice Kennedy has explained, the decision was “questionable even when decided, [and] now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier.” Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 135 S.Ct. 1124, 1135 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). \\nThis brief primarily addresses the important question of what will happen if this Court overturns Quill. There is no doubt that the respondents and their amici will argue that vast confusion will ensue if the states are freed from the bright-line rule of Quill. That will not happen for (at least) three reasons. First, there is little evidence that the states would rush to enact a welter of burdensome use tax collection laws and much evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the same technological innovations that have made the adverse impacts of the Quill rule so problematic for States like South Dakota have also driven down the cost of compliance, thereby reducing the likelihood that state laws can impose significant costs on remote sellers. \\nSecond, should this Court overturn the physical presence rule established in Quill, that does not mean that this Court, or courts generally, will not be able to protect interstate sellers. There are a number of doctrines that remain to guard against potential abuses. First, should a state or locality impose obligations on remote sellers that do not apply to local vendors, then such laws are virtually per se invalid. Second, should a state or locality impose financially significant obligations on remote sellers, then Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970), adequately protects them if the “burden imposed [by state laws] is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” \\nThird, Congress is standing by to act should states overstep. The Quill rule reversed the default set up by the Constitution under which states are free to act as sovereigns unless Congress acts. If Quill is overturned and the constitutional default restored, amici believe that Congress is fully prepared to act, especially if the problem to be solved is overreaching by a few states or by certain local tax schemes that collectively place excessive burdens on out-of-state sellers. Furthermore, with the Quill tax shelter no longer available, all the states and interstate sellers will favor establishing standard rules of practice in order to facilitate orderly and efficient revenue collection. In this regard, it is notable that commercial interstate interests have had considerable success in persuading Congress to pass balanced laws that have served to streamline their interactions with state and local revenue authorities while protecting legitimate state interests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":368113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"State & Local Government eJournal\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"State & Local Government eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3170470\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"State & Local Government eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3170470","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Amici同意请愿人的意见,即Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298(1992)中确立的实际存在规则应该被推翻。正如肯尼迪大法官所解释的那样,这一决定“即使在做出决定时也是值得怀疑的,而且现在对各州的损害程度远远超过了此前的预期。”直接Mktg。Ass 'n v. Brohl, 135 s.c.1124, 1135 (2015) (Kennedy, J.,同意)。本摘要主要讨论的是一个重要问题,即如果最高法院推翻Quill案,将会发生什么。毫无疑问,被告和他们的朋友会争辩说,如果各州从奎尔的明确规则中解脱出来,将会出现巨大的混乱。由于(至少)三个原因,这种情况不会发生。首先,几乎没有证据表明各州会急于制定一大堆繁琐的使用税征收法律,相反的证据也很多。此外,同样的技术创新,使Quill规则的不利影响对南达科他州等州造成了如此大的问题,也降低了合规成本,从而降低了州法律对偏远卖家施加重大成本的可能性。第二,如果本院推翻Quill案中确立的实体存在规则,这并不意味着本院或一般法院将无法保护州际销售者。目前仍有一些原则可以防止潜在的滥用。首先,如果一个州或地方对远程卖家施加了不适用于本地卖家的义务,那么这些法律实际上本身就是无效的。其次,如果一个州或地方对远程销售者施加重大的财务义务,那么Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc, 397 U.S. 137, 142(1970),如果“(由州法律施加的)负担与假定的地方利益相比明显过度”,则充分保护他们。第三,如果州政府越界,国会随时准备采取行动。Quill的裁决推翻了宪法规定的默认状态,即除非国会采取行动,否则各州可以自由行使主权。如果Quill案被推翻,宪法上的违约得以恢复,amici相信国会已经做好了充分的准备,特别是如果要解决的问题是少数几个州的过度干预,或者某些地方税收计划集体给州外卖家带来了过多的负担。此外,随着“羽毛笔”避税制度的废除,所有的州和州际卖家都将倾向于建立标准的实践规则,以促进有序和有效的税收征收。在这方面,值得注意的是,商业州际利益集团在说服国会通过平衡法律方面取得了相当大的成功,这些法律有助于简化他们与州和地方税收当局的互动,同时保护合法的州利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brief of Four US Senators in South Dakota v. Wayfair (Merits)
Amici agree with petitioner that the physical presence rule established by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), should be overturned. As Justice Kennedy has explained, the decision was “questionable even when decided, [and] now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier.” Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 135 S.Ct. 1124, 1135 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). This brief primarily addresses the important question of what will happen if this Court overturns Quill. There is no doubt that the respondents and their amici will argue that vast confusion will ensue if the states are freed from the bright-line rule of Quill. That will not happen for (at least) three reasons. First, there is little evidence that the states would rush to enact a welter of burdensome use tax collection laws and much evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the same technological innovations that have made the adverse impacts of the Quill rule so problematic for States like South Dakota have also driven down the cost of compliance, thereby reducing the likelihood that state laws can impose significant costs on remote sellers. Second, should this Court overturn the physical presence rule established in Quill, that does not mean that this Court, or courts generally, will not be able to protect interstate sellers. There are a number of doctrines that remain to guard against potential abuses. First, should a state or locality impose obligations on remote sellers that do not apply to local vendors, then such laws are virtually per se invalid. Second, should a state or locality impose financially significant obligations on remote sellers, then Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970), adequately protects them if the “burden imposed [by state laws] is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Third, Congress is standing by to act should states overstep. The Quill rule reversed the default set up by the Constitution under which states are free to act as sovereigns unless Congress acts. If Quill is overturned and the constitutional default restored, amici believe that Congress is fully prepared to act, especially if the problem to be solved is overreaching by a few states or by certain local tax schemes that collectively place excessive burdens on out-of-state sellers. Furthermore, with the Quill tax shelter no longer available, all the states and interstate sellers will favor establishing standard rules of practice in order to facilitate orderly and efficient revenue collection. In this regard, it is notable that commercial interstate interests have had considerable success in persuading Congress to pass balanced laws that have served to streamline their interactions with state and local revenue authorities while protecting legitimate state interests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信