000			02008nab a2200289 c 4500
999			_c144542 _d144542
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20210825135327.0
007			ta
008			210825t2021 us ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_91336 _aStark, Kirk J.
245		0	_aWayfair in constitutional perspective _bwho sets the ground rules of US fiscal federalism? _c Kirk J. Stark
260			_c2021
500			_aDisponible también en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
504			_aBibliografía.
520			_aThe 2018 US Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair is arguably the court’s most consequential state tax decision in a generation, perhaps longer. The Wayfair decision overturned the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Quill (itself a continuation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Bellas Hess a quarter century earlier), which had prohibited states from imposing a use tax collection obligation on vendors without a physical presence in the taxing state. Although the decision marks a welcome milestone in the development of the retail sales tax as an effective destination-based consumption tax, the court’s decision also invigorates the constitutional principle of state autonomy in fiscal matters, leaving the imposition of any constraints on state taxing power to Congress. However, unlike in earlier eras when Congress responded to court decisions with new statutory limits, today’s Congress faces historic polarization and legislative gridlock, reducing the likelihood of federal reforms designed to promote uniformity and simplification.
650		4	_aVENTAS _948680
650		4	_aIMPUESTOS _947460
650		4	_aINGRESOS FISCALES _947378
650		4	_aECONOMIA DIGITAL _966104
650		4	_aCOMERCIO ELECTRONICO _950220
650		4	_aESTADOS UNIDOS _942888
650		4	_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947570
773	0		_9165394 _oOP 233/2021/1 _tNational Tax Journal _w(IEF)86491 _x 0028-0283 _gv. 74, n. 1, March 2021, p. 221-256
942			_cART