State By and Through Heitkamp v. Quill Corp.
Decision Date | 07 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 900257,900257 |
Citation | 470 N.W.2d 203 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, By and Through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi HEITKAMP, Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. QUILL CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Nicholas J. Spaeth, Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for plaintiff, appellant and cross-appellee. Appearance by Alan H. Friedman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Los Altos, Cal.
John E. Gaggini (argued), and Don S. Harnack (appearance), McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., and William P. Pearce (appearance), Pearce & Durick, Bismarck, for defendant, appellee and cross-appellant.
The State of North Dakota appealed from a district court summary judgment declaring that subsections (6) and (7) of Section 57-40.2-01, N.D.C.C., are unconstitutional as applied to Quill Corporation [Quill], and that the State therefore may not require Quill to collect and remit use tax on its sales to North Dakota consumers. Quill cross-appealed from that part of the summary judgment dismissing its action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. We hold that Section 57-40.2-01, N.D.C.C., is constitutional as applied to Quill and accordingly we reverse the summary judgment.
Quill is a Delaware corporation with offices and warehouses in Illinois, California, and Georgia. Quill sells office supplies, stationery, and equipment, offering over 9,500 different products ranging from paper clips to computers. Its annual sales are in excess of $200,000,000.
Quill solicits business through its numerous catalogs and flyers, advertisements in nationally distributed "card packs," advertisements in national periodicals and trade journals, and telephone solicitation of current customers. Of the more than 200,000 orders Quill receives monthly, approximately one-half are by telephone. The remaining half are received by mail, fax, telex, and by direct computer contact.
Quill's annual sales to nearly 3,500 active 1 North Dakota customers are just under $1,000,000. By sales volume, it is the sixth largest seller of office supplies in North Dakota. Quill each year mails over 60 different catalogs and flyers to its North Dakota customers. This amounts to more than 230,000 separate pieces of mail, weighing over 24 tons, sent into the State annually by Quill.
North Dakota imposes a use tax upon property purchased for storage, use, or consumption within the State. Section 57-40.2-01, N.D.C.C. The rate is equivalent to the corollary sales tax. See Sections 57-39.2-02.1 and 57-40.2-02.1, N.D.C.C. A credit is given if sales or use taxes have been paid to another state upon the same property. Section 57-40.2-11, N.D.C.C.
Although the consumer is ultimately responsible for the tax, a "retailer maintaining a place of business in this state" is required to collect the tax from the consumer and remit it to the State. Section 57-40.2-07, N.D.C.C. Section 57-40.2-01, N.D.C.C., defines "retailer" and "retailer maintaining a place of business in this state":
Section 81-04.1-01-03.1(3) of the North Dakota Administrative Code defines "regular or systematic solicitation" as "three or more separate transmittances of any advertisement or advertisements" during a specified twelve-month period. 2
Quill has refused to collect and remit use taxes on goods purchased and used by Quill's customers in North Dakota. The State, through its Tax Commissioner, commenced this declaratory judgment action under Chapter 32-23, N.D.C.C., seeking a declaration that Quill is a "retailer" and a "retailer maintaining a place of business in this state" which must collect and remit the applicable use tax on its sales to customers in this State.
Quill answered, alleging that Chapter 57-40.2, N.D.C.C., as applied to Quill, is violative of the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution as interpreted in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967). Quill filed a counterclaim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged violations of its Due Process and Commerce Clause rights, and seeking attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the State could not constitutionally require Quill to collect and remit use taxes. Relying principally upon Bellas Hess, the district court held that the State had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between Quill and the State, and that subsections (6) and (7) of Section 57-40.2-01 were therefore unconstitutional as applied to Quill. The court dismissed Quill's counterclaim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1988.
Judgment was entered accordingly and the State appealed. Quill cross-appealed from that part of the judgment dismissing its counterclaim.
Quill concedes that its solicitation of sales in North Dakota meets the statutory and administrative guidelines for a "retailer maintaining a place of business in this state." Thus, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the State may constitutionally require Quill to collect and remit the use tax.
Any discussion of imposition of the duty of collecting a use tax upon an out-of-state seller must begin with an analysis of Bellas Hess, supra. National Bellas Hess was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Missouri. Illinois attempted to require National Bellas Hess to collect and remit use tax on mail order sales into that state. The United States Supreme Court summarized the constitutional background:
Bellas Hess, supra, 386 U.S. at 756, 87 S.Ct. at 1391, 18 L.Ed.2d at 508-509 (citations omitted).
Characterizing National Bellas Hess as a mail order seller which did "no more than communicate with customers in the State by mail or common carrier," [Bellas Hess, supra, 386 U.S. at 758, 87 S.Ct. at 1392, 18 L.Ed.2d at 510], the Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that this connection with Illinois was insufficient to require National Bellas Hess to collect and remit the use tax. The Court drew a "bright line" distinction between mail order sellers whose only connection with its customers in the taxing state was by common carrier or the United States mail and those with more significant connections with the state.
The Court also stressed the substantial administrative burden upon National Bellas Hess if it were required to collect and remit use taxes to numerous jurisdictions. The Court noted that "[t]he many variations in rates of tax, in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and record-keeping requirements could entangle National's interstate business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions." Bellas Hess, supra, 386 U.S. at 759-760, 87 S.Ct. at 1393, 18 L.Ed.2d at 510 (footnotes omitted).
Justice Fortas, speaking for the dissenters in Bellas Hess, formulated a different approach for analyzing the contacts between a taxing state and an out-of-state seller necessary to satisfy Due Process and Commerce Clause requirements. Justice Fortas suggested a more case-specific approach which would take into consideration the nature and extent of the solicitation and exploitation of the state's consumer market:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haney v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
... ... Purposes of compensation law--Police power. The state of North Dakota, exercising its police and sovereign ... Williams County, 206 N.W.2d 75, 83 (N.D.1973) ]. 'Through what precise points in a field of many competing pressures ... Corp. v. Smith, 436 N.W.2d 246 (N.D.1989), but we have never ... p 5. See also State v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 213 (N.D.1991), rev'd, --- U.S ... ...
-
Quill Corporation v. North Dakota Heitkamp
...issue here is one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve and one that it has the ultimate power to resolve. Pp. 314-318. 470 N.W.2d 203 (N.D.1991), reversed and STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, and the opinion of the Co......
-
Tax Com'R v. Mbna America Bank, N.A.
...provided by the State, and should stress economic realities rather than artificial benchmarks." State By and Through Heitkamp v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 215 (N.D.1991), rev'd, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). As Quill demonstrates, when given the chance to again con......
-
Bielski v. Zorn
...See Collins v. Day (1992), Ind.App., 604 N.E.2d 647, 650-51 (discussing the relation between the two clauses).20 See State v. Quill Corp. (1991), N.D., 470 N.W.2d 203, rev'd (1992), --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91, on remand (1992), N.D., 487 N.E.2d 598.21 Generally, a denial ......
-
This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
...the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State.’”); State v. Quill Corp . , 470 N.W.2d 203, 212 (N.D. 1991) (“Thus ‘[t]he forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction ove......
-
Geoffrey, Inc., petitioner, v. Commissioner of Revenue, respondent. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
...social, economic, commercial, and legal innovations" since National Bellas Hess was decided in 1967. North Dakota v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 208 (N.D. 1991). The Court declined, however, North Dakota's invitation to cast aside more than 25 years of precedent simply because States found......
-
Beam resolves taxpayer claims under Davis but Quill raises new prospectivity issue.
...judgment action has now applied for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. See Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Department of Revenue, 470 N.W.2d 203 (May 7, 1991). The taxpayer in Quill seeks to overturn the holding of the North Dakota Supreme Court that National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Dep......
-
The imposition of sales and use taxes on e-commerce: a taxing dilemma for states and remote sellers.
...and Georgia. Id. (57.) Id. at 302, citing N.D. CENT. CODE [section] 57-40.2-01(6). (58.) See State by Heitkamp v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 216-17, 219 (N.D. (59.) Id. at 208 (observing growth of mail order business from "market niche" to "goliath"). The court explained that the mail-ord......