Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

net  as  a  means  to  grow  their  companies  and  access  a
national  market,  without  exposing  them  to  the  daunting 
complexity  and  business-development  obstacles  of  nation­
wide  sales  tax  collection.”    Brief  for  Respondents  29. 
These  burdens  may  pose  legitimate  concerns  in  some
instances,  particularly  for  small  businesses  that  make  a 
small volume of sales to customers in many States.  State 
taxes  differ,  not  only  in  the  rate  imposed  but  also  in  the 
categories  of  goods  that  are  taxed  and,  sometimes,  the 
relevant  date  of  purchase.    Eventually,  software  that  is
available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small 
businesses  to  cope  with  these  problems.    Indeed,  as  the 
physical  presence  rule  no  longer  controls,  those  systems 
may well become available in a short period of time, either 
from private providers or from state taxing agencies them­
selves.  And  in  all  events,  Congress  may  legislate  to  ad­
dress  these  problems  if  it  deems  it  necessary  and  fit  to 
do so. 

In this case, however,  South Dakota affords small mer­
chants a reasonable degree of protection.  The law at issue 
requires  a  merchant  to  collect  the  tax  only  if  it  does  a 
considerable  amount  of  business  in  the  State;  the  law  is 
not  retroactive;  and  South  Dakota  is  a  party  to  the
Streamlined  Sales  and  Use  Tax  Agreement,  see  infra 
at 23. 

Finally,  other  aspects  of  the  Court’s  Commerce  Clause
doctrine  can  protect  against  any  undue  burden  on  inter­
state  commerce,  taking  into  consideration  the  small  busi­
nesses, startups, or others who engage in commerce across
state  lines.  For  example,  the  United  States  argues  that 
tax-collection  requirements  should  be  analyzed  under  the 
balancing  framework  of  Pike  v.  Bruce  Church,  Inc.,  397 
U. S.  137.    Others  have  argued  that  retroactive  liability 
risks a double tax burden in violation of the Court’s appor­
tionment  jurisprudence  because  it  would  make  both  the
buyer and the seller legally liable for collecting and remit­