Talk:Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

United States: North Dakota Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Proposed removal of coverage of proposed legislation

Wikipedia should not be a forum for discussing any of the thousands of pieces of proposed legislation. I propose removal of the recent addition of a proposal to legislatively overturn Quill. Such legislation has been proposed frequently in the past, and has never gained traction. Why is this one different? Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court only got it half right

The court based their decision on only the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). However Article 1, Section 9 in a clause I call the Interstate Taxation Clause says, "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." By this clause Congress has no Constitutional authority to even try to allow sales taxes across state lines. Why the Supremes failed to cite Article 1, Section 9 is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.181.52 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article I, Section 9 applies only to taxes on items exported from a state, not to taxes on items imported into a state. Famspear (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, Article I, section 9 prohibits the state from which the item is being exported from imposing a sales tax on the export. That provision does not prevent the state into which the item is being imported from imposing a sales tax. Federal courts are well aware of Article I, section 9.

For example, the 0.125% harbor maintenance tax on the value of commercial cargo involved in a taxed port use under 26 U.S.C. § 4461 was unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court under Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 5, in the case of United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 118 S. Ct. 1290 (1998).

Similarly, the coal excise tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4221 was ruled to be an unconstitutional tax on exports by a federal district court in 1998 in the case of Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,109 (E.D. Va. 1998).

See also United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 116 S. Ct. 1793, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,059 (1996). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an excise tax on casualty insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers to cover shipments of goods violated the prohibition on taxes on exports. Famspear (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude: It appears that in the Quill case, the tax was a tax on items being imported into a state. If that was the case, then Article I, section 9 did not apply. Famspear (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]