Did Supreme Court Potentially Bankrupt Tens of Thousands of Online Businesses?

My biggest issue with paying taxes in other states is what services are they providing? You pay federal taxes which covers interstates, you pay taxes on your shipping fees which should cover state roadways.<p>So if I pay South Dakota sales tax then I should be able to contact state representatives, should be included in votes for any state referendums that affect my business and should basically be considered a citizen of that state. Otherwise I see it as taxation without representation.

The good news, is that so far most states seem to be modeling their legislation after South Dakotas so hopefully there won&#x27;t be a ton of rule variation.<p>The filing requirement is the real kicker. Until small business software like Quickbooks and Turbotax for business makes it trivial to file in every state. The compliance cost will be VERY high. In Hawaii for example, you have to file and pay your excise tax return every month. Multiple that by every state and you have a lot of work.<p>I suspect those companies that sell inexpensive items will probably restrict the number of states they sell to until the software support is there.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just incorporate offshore in the Caymans or British Virgin Islands to do an ecommerce business now? Or would that foreign entity still need to collect sales tax from USA consumers?

If anyone has caused undue pressure on businesses - and hence customers - it&#x27;s Congress. The Supreme Court interprets when Congress is unclear. Congress has incentive to always be unclear - it gives them wiggle room to negotiate for your vote.

It may also have saved tens of thousands of brick and mortar stores. I often buy expensive items from B&amp;H in New York instead of a local seller who has to add 9% CA sales tax.

This decision enables a state-imposed tax on inter-state shipping of goods purchased in other states (via mail-order catalogues or internet e-commerce -- aka &quot;virtual showrooms&quot; as Kennedy&#x27;s decision calls a website, in order to drop the now-abandoned requirement for &quot;physical presence&quot;).<p>Don&#x27;t be fooled by it being labeled a &quot;sales tax&quot;. In actual fact, the Supreme Court has enabled <i>tariffs between the US States</i>. Which is exactly what the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent.

I thought this only applied to businesses with over $100K in sales?

Time for the US to move to a single VAT&#x2F;GST model?