000			01720nab#a2200277#c#4500
003			IEF
005			20180619144756.0
008			171026s2017 USA|| #####0 b|ENG|u
040			_aIEF
041			_aENG
100	1		_aEntin, Jonathan L. _962506
245			_aPhysical presence and state taxing authority _b the uncertain legacy of Quill _c Jonathan L. Entin
260			_c2017
500			_aDisponible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Resumen. Conclusión.
650		4	_aIMPUESTOS _947460
650		4	_aLOCALIZACION _947647
650		4	_aRESIDENCIA FISCAL _948282
650		4	_aDOMICILIO FISCAL _942896
650		4	_aESTADOS UNIDOS _942888
520			_aIn 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.
650		4	_948454 _aSOCIEDADES
773	0		_tJournal of Taxation of Investments _w51921 _gv. 35, n. 1, Fall 2017, p. 31-42
942			_cART
942			_z148768
999			_c137292 _d137292