Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

than  $100,000  of  goods  or  services  into  South  Dakota  or
engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the deliv­
ery  of  goods  and  services  into  the  State  on  an  annual
basis.  S.  B.  106,  §1.  This  quantity  of  business  could  not 
have  occurred  unless  the  seller  availed  itself  of  the  sub­
stantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota. 
And  respondents  are  large,  national  companies  that  un­
doubtedly  maintain  an  extensive  virtual  presence.    Thus, 
the  substantial  nexus  requirement  of  Complete  Auto  is 
satisfied in this case. 

The  question  remains  whether  some  other  principle  in 
the  Court’s  Commerce  Clause  doctrine  might  invalidate
the Act.  Because the Quill physical presence rule was an 
obvious barrier to the Act’s validity, these issues have not 
yet  been  litigated  or  briefed,  and  so  the  Court  need  not 
resolve them here.  That said, South Dakota’s tax system
includes several features that appear designed to prevent 
discrimination  against  or  undue  burdens  upon  interstate 
commerce.  First,  the  Act  applies  a  safe  harbor  to  those 
who  transact  only  limited  business  in  South  Dakota. 
Second,  the  Act  ensures  that  no  obligation  to  remit  the 
sales  tax  may  be  applied  retroactively.  S.  B.  106,  §5.
Third,  South  Dakota  is  one  of  more  than  20  States  that 
have  adopted  the  Streamlined  Sales  and  Use  Tax  Agree­
ment.  This system standardizes taxes to reduce adminis­
trative  and  compliance  costs:  It  requires  a  single,  state 
level  tax  administration,  uniform  definitions  of  products 
and  services,  simplified  tax  rate  structures,  and  other
uniform  rules.  It  also  provides  sellers  access  to  sales  tax
administration software paid for by the State.  Sellers who 
choose to use such software are immune from audit liabil­
ity.  See App. 26–27.  Any remaining claims regarding the
application  of  the  Commerce  Clause  in  the  absence  of 
Quill  and  Bellas  Hess  may  be  addressed  in  the  first  in­
stance on remand. 

The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota is