Physical presence and state taxing authority the uncertain legacy of Quill Jonathan L. Entin
By: Entin, Jonathan L
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2017Subject(s): IMPUESTOS | LOCALIZACION | RESIDENCIA FISCAL | DOMICILIO FISCAL | ESTADOS UNIDOS | SOCIEDADES
In:
Journal of Taxation of Investments v. 35, n. 1, Fall 2017, p. 31-42Summary: In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffi rmedthat states could not compel out-of-state businesses that had no physical presence in the jurisdiction to collect sales and use taxes from state customers. It remains unclear whether this physical presencerule applies to other kinds of taxes, however. This article explores that question by focusing on Crutchfi eld Corp. v. Testa, a recent case in which the Ohio Supreme Court debated whetherQuill.s physical-presence rule applies to a business-privilege tax. The article also considers why the U.S. Supreme Court hasdeclined to address the matter since Quill and suggests the need for some authoritative resolution that either harmonizes the statusof different kinds of state taxes or explains why different rules might be appropriate for different taxes.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IEF | OP 235/2017/35/1-1 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 235/2017/35/1-1 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| OP 235/2017/34/4-4 Securitization of our nation's forests | OP 235/2017/34/4-5 International investors and corporate taxation | OP 235/2017/34/4-6 Winners and losers in " Cosentino " cases | OP 235/2017/35/1-1 Physical presence and state taxing authority | OP 235/2017/35/1-2 Monetizing certain deferred tax assets in a rising interest rate environment | OP 235/2017/35/1-3 The still - rising tide | OP 235/2017/35/1-4 Austin v. Commissioner |
Disponible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Resumen. Conclusión.
In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffi rmedthat states could not compel out-of-state businesses that had no physical presence in the jurisdiction to collect sales and use taxes from state customers. It remains unclear whether this physical presencerule applies to other kinds of taxes, however. This article explores that question by focusing on Crutchfi eld Corp. v. Testa, a recent case in which the Ohio Supreme Court debated whetherQuill.s physical-presence rule applies to a business-privilege tax. The article also considers why the U.S. Supreme Court hasdeclined to address the matter since Quill and suggests the need for some authoritative resolution that either harmonizes the statusof different kinds of state taxes or explains why different rules might be appropriate for different taxes.
There are no comments for this item.