Search

Introduction--Shifting Preferences The nature of work is changing. The increased popularity of remote employment has effectively enabled the U.S. workforce to reside in the states they so desire, as opposed [...]

Introduction In our Fall 2022 column, we discussed the case of Jon Bargains, Inc. v. Washington Dep't of Revenue (1) in which the Washington Board of Tax Appeals found that [...]

On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held (1) that the National Pork Producers' position, regarding California restrictions on pork sold within the state, did not state a claim [...]

Introduction For foreign businesses, federal nexus standards of engaging in a trade or business within the United States are based on whether the company has income effectively connected with a [...]

I. Introduction Buying hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) (1) products is as easy as buying a cup of coffee in many parts of the country. In fact, in Oregon and Florida, consumers [...]

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., (1) the U.S. Supreme Court essentially gutted Commerce Clause protections for taxpayers operating in interstate commerce. Taxpayers, therefore, rightfully wonder whether protections are still [...]

By now it is likely that you know of, and may have even read, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., (1) a seminal state tax decision issued by the U.S. Supreme [...]

Overview Despite four dissents in Wayfair, (1) all nine Justices agreed on one thing--that Quill (2) was 'wrong on its own terms when it was decided in 1992, since then [...]

The 'tax case of the millennium' was decided in June by the U.S. Supreme Court. In South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., (1) the Court ruled 5-4 to overturn the decades-old [...]

On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (Supreme Court Docket No. 17-494). (1) In Wayfair, the Court overturned the 50-year old [...]

In the Fall edition, we devoted this column to recent developments surrounding the appropriate nexus standards for business income taxes. At the time we wrote our Fall column, our intent [...]

This spring remote sellers have been increasingly targeted by state legislatures looking to increase states' use tax collections. States are lining up to require remote sellers to report sales to in-state residents even if the seller is not required to collect use tax. Other states are taking the more direct route of passing laws that are directly in contravention of the physical presence nexus standard required by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota' in an effort to get a case before the U.S. Supreme Court for a re-examination of that physical presence standard., The Expansion of Reporting Requirements for Remote Sellers As discussed in the Winter Edition, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Colorado law that requires retailers that have no [...]

I. Introduction Twenty-four states have enacted at least one statute regulating the relationship between franchisors and franchisees (State Relationship Laws). (1) Such laws are intended to protect franchisees because the [...]

'No poach' or 'anti-poaching' clauses in franchise agreements are provisions that restrict franchisees from hiring employees of their franchisor or of other franchisees in the same system. Franchisors have included [...]

For nearly 25 years, Quill (1) has stood as the most significant decision in state tax. In Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a mail-order company could not be [...]

General Rule of Substantial Nexus The Ohio General Assembly enacted Ohio's biennial Budget Bill, Am. Sub. H.B. No. 64, and it became effective July 1, 2015. Part of it made [...]

On March 3, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) does not bar a suit to contest the enforcement of a Colorado law that imposes [...]

In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 'it is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens [...]

Introduction The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided a commerce clause challenge to imposition of a use tax in Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Department of Revenue. (1) In upholding imposition [...]

In a decision with sweeping implications for interstate pipeline companies that do business in Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of the state's ad valorem tax scheme, [...]

During the next few weeks, port terminal gates at Los Angeles and Long Beach will feature an unfamiliar sight - hundreds of new, low-polluting trucks that are entering service under [...]

ICC Commissioner Gail McDonald urged shippers to voice out their concerns over issues affecting the shipping industry before Congress dismantles the industry's regulating body. McDonald claims that Congress may let the Commission to stay until all critical issues such as the proposal to scrap the Carmack Amendment have been resolved. The Amendment holds carriers to pay maximum liability for losses or damages to goods hauled. The ICC recommends retention of the Amendment because it allows shippers to settle claims amicably. It believes that scrapping Carmack will prolong negotiations and end all rate regulations.

State officials successfully convinced critics of the state's proposed double-stack rail development plan about the merits of imposing a special 'toll' on container movements, with the help of some detailed explanation. The plan requires railroads to pay a $350 surcharge to the state for containers transported east of Worcester or Gardner, MA, on Consolidated Rail Corp.'s amd Guilford Transportation Industries Inc.'s lines. The plan was criticized by some sectors as an illegal attempt to regulate interstate commerce.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is being clipped of many of its powers. Once considered to be one of the most powerful regulatory bodies in the US, given its oversight of the railroad and trucking industries, the ICC now has to endure not just a cutback in its budget but also a reduction of its transport oversight duties. It does not deserve such treatment and should be allowed to redeeem itself and play the important role it was intended to play: that of ensuring that it protects the interests of the public in the all-important transport arena.

Several federal agencies have been authorized to regulate interstate commerce. Such agencies operate under the premise stipulated in the commerce clause. The Constitution included the commerce clause since there had been no previous restrictions on cross-border trade. Hence, the commerce clause was originally intended to prevent states from interfering with trade between them. However, federal authority got out of hand and all transactions found to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce became fair game for federal regulators.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has rejected Illinois Central Railroad Co.'s (IC) proposed tariff on shippers' liability for freight damages. The Carmack Amendment to the revised Interstate Commerce Act specifies that receiving carriers are held responsible for the full loss, damage or injury to the goods they haul. IC wants to pass this responsibility for damages on the shippers, which ICC claims contradicts the Carmack Amendment.

Mississippi federal Judge L.T. Senter ruled that the shipment of prison-made products across state borders was illegal. Senter cited a 1935 law prohibiting the use of prison laborers to defer higher labor costs. Senter dismissed the arguments made by Preston Glove and Safety Co and State Springs Glove Co. The companies filed a lawsuit against the federal government, which authorized a search and seizure action against them.