Source: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2018/01/whos-blowing-up-pennsylvanias-marketplace-seller-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:27:37+00:00

Document:
Who’s blowing up Pennsylvania’s “marketplace seller” law and the Nextel NOL fix?
Home Perspectives Who’s blowing up Pennsylvania’s “marketplace seller” law and the Nextel NOL fix?
A group of fireworks retailers have brought a constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania’s Act 43 of 2017. The retailers are specifically challenging provisions of Act 43 dealing with Pennsylvania’s regulation of fireworks sales. If the retailers are successful, it could result in the invalidation of the whole of Act 43, which included a number of important Pennsylvania tax changes. This makes this suit an important one for Pennsylvania taxpayers to watch.
But Phantom Fireworks’ lawsuit has nothing to do with taxes. (And that’s the problem.) Instead, it has to do with the regulation of fireworks. So the tax provisions in Act 43 are caught in the middle.
Thus, if Phantom is successful, the other tax-related provisions of Act 43 may be invalidated, and the General Assembly and the governor may have to return to negotiations over a new tax code bill.
“Pennsylvania Enacts Tax Bill,” Reed Smith Client Alert (October 30, 2017).
Act 43 of 2017, § 4 adding new 72 P.S. §§ 7213–7213.6.
Act 43, § 27 amending 72 P.S. § 7401(3)4.(C)(1)–(2).
Act 43, §§ 23–25 amending 72 P.S. § 7324.1–324.5, 335 and 352.
Act 43, § 1 amending 72 P.S. § 7201(m)(2).
Act 43, § 48 repealing 35 P.S. § 1271–1278.
Act 43, § 43 adding Article XXIV to the Tax Reform Code of 1971.
Phantom Fireworks Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint in Equity Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at ¶ 26 (“Under Act 43, retail consumer fireworks sales are now permitted to Pennsylvania residents, including from temporary sites … than can be opened inexpensively and without regard to construction or safety standards”).
Phantom Fireworks Petition for Review at ¶ 51.
City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 838 A.2d 266 (Pa. 2003).
Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 433–435 (Pa. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603, 615 (Pa. 2013)) cf. Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 57 A.3d 1254, 1265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (severing portions of bill violating Single Subject Rule after acknowledging “there is no indication that the remaining provisions would not have been passed without the offending amendments”).

References: § 4
 § 27
 § 7401
 § 7324
 § 1
 § 7201
 § 48
 § 1271
 § 43
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.