Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

previously stated that “[t]he imposition on the seller of the
duty to insure collection of the tax from the purchaser does 
not  violate  the  [C]ommerce  [C]lause.”    McGoldrick  v. 
Berwind-White  Coal  Mining  Co.,  309  U. S.  33,  50,  n.  9 
(1940).  It is a “ ‘familiar and sanctioned device.’ ”  Scripto, 
Inc. v. Carson, 362 U. S. 207, 212 (1960).  There just must
be “a substantial nexus with the taxing State.”  Complete 
Auto, supra, at 279. 

This nexus requirement is “closely related,” Bellas Hess, 
386  U. S.,  at  756,  to  the  due  process  requirement  that 
there  be  “some  definite  link,  some  minimum  connection, 
between a state and the person, property or transaction it
seeks  to  tax,”  Miller  Brothers  Co.  v.  Maryland,  347  U. S. 
340, 344–345 (1954).  It is settled law that a business need 
not  have  a  physical  presence  in  a  State  to  satisfy  the 
demands of due process.  Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 
471  U. S.  462,  476  (1985).    Although  physical  presence
“ ‘frequently  will  enhance’ ”  a  business’  connection  with  a
State, “ ‘it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life
that  a  substantial  amount  of  business  is  transacted  . . . 
[with  no]  need  for  physical  presence  within  a  State  in
which  business  is  conducted.’ ”    Quill,  504  U. S.,  at  308. 
Quill  itself  recognized  that  “[t]he  requirements  of  due
process  are  met  irrespective  of  a  corporation’s  lack  of
physical presence in the taxing State.”  Ibid. 

When considering whether a State may levy a tax, Due
Process  and  Commerce  Clause  standards  may  not  be
identical  or  coterminous,  but  there  are  significant  paral­
lels.  The reasons given in Quill for rejecting the physical 
presence rule for due process purposes apply as well to the 
question  whether  physical  presence  is  a  requisite  for  an
out-of-state seller’s liability to remit sales taxes.  Physical
presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus. 

The  Quill  majority  expressed  concern  that  without  the
physical  presence  rule  “a  state  tax  might  unduly  burden 
interstate  commerce”  by  subjecting  retailers  to  tax­