David Blum was quoted in a report by The Real Deal on the business implications behind the recent Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair allowing states to collect taxes on internet sales. Breaking away from precedent established in Quill v. North Dakota on this very subject, the court also sought to avoid formalistic disctinctions in its Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The latter entrusts Congress with the power to regulate and imposes taxes on commerce with foreign nations and between U.S. states, a guiding principle in Quill v. North Dakota. Among other things, the 1992 high court ruling established a company must have a physical presence in a state to be subject to sales tax, a requirement Blum explained is no longer needed post Wayfair . Read more on Wayfair on Akerman Perspectives.

The Real Deal wrote: “The question for those businesses, said David Blum, a tax attorney in Akerman’s Chicago office, is: ‘what happens to our online presence?’ We don’t want to register in dozens of our states.’

“Blum said this could potentially mean more compliance costs and spending more on tax software for small businesses. Uncertainty, he said, appears to be the biggest takeaway from the court’s ruling.

“‘We are not sure how this is going to play out,’ Blum said. ‘Only time will tell who are the real winners and losers.’”