National Bellas Hess, Incorporated v. Department of Revenue of State of Illinois, 241

Citation87 S.Ct. 1389,386 U.S. 753,18 L.Ed.2d 505
Decision Date08 May 1967
Docket NumberNo. 241,241
PartiesNATIONAL BELLAS HESS, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Terence F. MacCarthy, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant, National Bellas Hess, is a mail order house with its principal place of business in North Kansas City, Missouri. It is licensed to do business in only that State and in Delaware, where it is incorporated. Although the company has neither outlets nor sales representatives in Illinois, the appellee, Department of Revenue, obtained a judgment from the Illinois Supreme Court that National is required to collect and pay to the State the use taxes imposed by Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 120, § 439.3 (1965).1 Since National's constitutional objections to the imposition of this liability present a substantial federal question, we noted probable jurisdiction of its appeal.2

The facts bearing upon National's relationship with Illinois are accurately set forth in the opinion of the State Supreme Court:

'(National) does not maintain in Illinois any office, distribution house, sales house, warehouse or any other place of business; it does not have in Illinois any agent, salesman, canvasser, solicitor or other type of representative to sell or take orders, to deliver merchandise, to accept payments, or to service merchandise it sells; it does not own any tangible property, real or personal, in Illinois; it has no telephone listing in Illinois and it has not advertised its merchandise for sale in newspapers, on billboards, or by radio or television in Illinois.'3

All of the contacts which National does have with the State are via the United States mail or common carrier. Twice a year catalogues are mailed to the company's active or recent customers throughout the Nation, including Illinois. This mailing is supplemented by advertising 'flyers' which are occasionally mailed to past and potential customers. Ordersfo r merchandise are mailed by the customers to National and are accepted at its Missouri plant. The ordered goods are then sent to the customers either by mail or by common carrier.

This manner of doing business is sufficient under the Illinois statute to classify National as a '(r)etailer maintaining a place of business in this State,' since that term includes any retailer:

'Engaging in soliciting orders within this State from users by means of catalogues or other advertising, whether such orders are received or accepted within or without this State.' Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 120, § 439.2 (1965).

Accordingly, the statute requires National to collect and pay to the appellee Department the tax imposed by Illinois upon consumers who purchase the company's goods for use within the State.4 When collecting this tax, National must give the Illinois purchaser 'a receipt therefor in the manner and form prescribed by the (appellee),' if one is demanded.5 It must also 'keep such records, receipts, invoices and other pertinent books, documents, memoranda and papers as the (appellee) shall require, in such form as the (appellee) shall require,' and must submit to such investigations, hearings, and examinations as are needed by the appellee to administer and enforce the use tax law.6 Failure to keep such records or to give required receipts is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to six months. 7 Finally, to allow service of process on an out-of-state company like National, the statute designates the Illinois Secretary of State as National's appointed agent, and jurisdiction in tax collection suits attaches when process is served on him and the company is notified by registered mail. 8

National argues that the liabilities which Illinois has thus imposed violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and create an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. These two claims are closely related. For the test whether a particular state exaction is such as to invade the exclusive authority of Congress to regulate trade between the States, and the test for a State's compliance with the requirements of due process in this area are similar. See Central R. Co. of Pa. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 370 U.S. 607, 621—622, 82 S.Ct. 1297, 1306—1307, 8 L.Ed.2d 720 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black). As to the former, the Court has held that 'State taxation falling on interstate commerce * * * can only be justified as designed to make such commerce bear a fair share of the cost of the local government whose protection it enjoys.' Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 253, 67 S.Ct. 274, 277, 91 L.Ed. 265. See also Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653, 663, 68 S.Ct. 1260, 1266, 92 L.Ed. 1633; Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 462, 79 S.Ct. 357, 364, 3 L.Ed.2d 421. And in determining whether a state tax falls within the confines of the Due process Clause, the Court has said that the 'simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.' Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444, 61 S.Ct. 246, 250, 85 L.Ed. 267. See also Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382, 72 S.Ct. 309, 96 L.Ed. 427; Ott v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 336 U.S. 169, 174, 69 S.Ct. 432, 434, 93 L.Ed. 585. The same principles have been held applicable in determining the power of a State to impose the burdens of collecting use taxes upon interstate sales. Here, too, the Constitution requires 'some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax.' Miller Bros. Co. v. State of Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 344—345, 74 S.Ct. 535, 539, 98 L.Ed. 744; Scripto Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207—210—211, 80 S.Ct. 619, 621—622, 4 L.Ed.2d66 0. 9 See also American Oil Co. v. Neill, 380 U.S. 451, 458, 85 S.Ct. 1130, 1134, 14 L.Ed.2d 1.

In applying these principles the Court has upheld the power of a State to impose liability upon an out-of-state seller to collect a local use tax in a variety of circumstances. Where the sales were arranged by local agents in the taxing State, we have upheld such power. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62, 59 S.Ct. 376, 83 L.Ed. 488; General Trading Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 322 U.S. 335, 64 S.Ct. 1028, 88 L.Ed. 1309. We have reached the same result where the mail order seller maintained local retail stores. Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 61 S.Ct. 58, 85 L.Ed. 888; Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 312 U.S. 373, 61 S.Ct. 593, 85 L.Ed. 897.10 In those situations the out-of-state seller was plainly accorded the protection and services of the taxing State. The case in this Court which represents the furthest constitutional reach to date of a State's power to deputize an out-of-state retailer as its collection agent for a use tax is Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207, 80 S.Ct. 619, 4 L.Ed.2d 660. There we held that Florida could constitutionally impose upon a Georgia seller the duty of collecting a state use tax upon the sale of goods shipped to customers in Florida. In that case the seller had '10 wholesalers, jobbers, or 'salesmen' conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods.' 362 U.S., at 211, 80 S.Ct., at 621.

But the Court has never held that a State may impose the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail. Indeed, in the Sears, Roebuck case the Court sharply differentiated such a situation from one where the seller had local retail outlets, pointing out that 'those other concerns * * * are not receiving benefits from Iowa for which it has the power to exact a price.' 312 U.S., at 365, 61 S.Ct., at 589. And in Miller Bros. Co. v. State of Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 74 S.Ct. 535, 98 L.Ed. 744, the Court held that Maryland could not constitutionally impose a use tax obligation upon a Delaware seller who had no retail outlets or sales solicitors in Maryland. There the seller advertised its wares to Maryland residents through newspaper and radio advertising, in addition to mailing circulars four times a year. As a result, it made substantial sales to Maryland customers, and made deliveries to them by its own trucks and drivers.

In order to uphold the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens on National in this case, we would have to repudiate totally the sharp distinction which these and other decisions have drawn between mail order sellers with retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State, and those who do no more than communicate with customers in the State by mail or common carrier as part of a general interstate business. But this basic distinction, which until now has been generally recognized by the state taxing authorities,11 is a valid one, and we decline to obliterate it.

We need not rest on the broad foundation of all that was said in the Miller Bros. opinion, for here there was neither local advertising nor local household deliveries, upon which the dissenters in Miller Bros. so largely relied. 347 U.S., at 358, 74 S.Ct., at 547. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of commercial transactions more exclusively interstate in character than the mail order transactions here involved. And if the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens upon National were upheld, the resulting impediments upon the free conduct of its interstate business would be neither imaginary nor remote. For if Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes. 12 The many variations in rates of tax,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
256 cases
  • Etc Mktg., Ltd. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 28 Abril 2017
    ...refused to do so in other cases. See, e.g., Quill Corp. , 504 U.S. at 315, 112 S.Ct. 1904 ; Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue , 386 U.S. 753, 757, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967). More generally, the Commerce Clause requires "some definite link, some minimum connection, betwe......
  • Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 18 Septiembre 1980
    ...property or transaction it seeks to tax'".58 This requirement is similar to the due process demand, National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, supra, 386 U.S. at 756, 87 S.Ct. at 1391, that local activities be sufficiently substantial to warrant any tax. See Northwestern States Portlan......
  • Widdison v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 29 Abril 2021
    ...L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), wherein the Court believed it was possible to reconcile the rule of National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois , 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967) —that a business must have a "physical presence" in a state before it may be forced to ......
  • Evanston Ins. Co., Inc. v. Merin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 19 Noviembre 1984
    ...required between an out-of-state business and a state before the state may impose tax liability is National Bellas Hess v. Dept. of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967). In National Bellas Hess, the State of Illinois attempted to require the plaintiff to collect and t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 firm's commentaries
  • Sales And Use of Taxation of Internet Transactions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 20 Abril 2004
    ...use tax collection context. (a) National Bellas Hess - Physical Presence Required. In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389 (1967), the United States Supreme Court was faced with the issue of what constituted sufficient nexus for a destination sta......
  • Nexus, The Threshold Requirement For State Taxation Of Multi-State Businesses
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 16 Abril 2004
    ...use tax collection context. (a) National Bellas Hess - Physical Presence Required. In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389 (1967), the United States Supreme Court was faced with the issue of what constituted sufficient nexus for a destination sta......
  • State Court Grants Injunction Against Colorado’s Sales And Use Tax Notice And Reporting Requirements
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 13 Marzo 2014
    ...commerce; and (4) the tax is fairly related to the services provided by the state. 18 National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), wherein the Court determined that a mail order retailer with no store, sales force, or other physical presence in a state did not h......
  • Florida District Court Of Appeal Finds Internet Sales Of Flowers To Out-Of-State Customers Not Subject To Sales Tax
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 6 Febrero 2015
    ...Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008). Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977). National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't. of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967). In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found the use tax at issue violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The only contact between th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Coast Line, 272 U.S. 606, 47 S.Ct. 207, 71 L.Ed. 432 (1926), 856 National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967), National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 63 S.Ct. 997, 87 L.Ed. 1344 (1943), 776 Na......
  • Retroactive Adjudication.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 2, November 2020
    • 1 Noviembre 2020
    ...138 S. Ct. 2080, 2091-92 (2018) (describing the physical-presence rule and tracing it to Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967)); see also Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 301-02 (1992) (declining to overrule Bellas (17.) 138 S. Ct. at 2087-88. (18.) Resp......
  • THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT AT (ALMOST) FIFTY: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 18, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...(2018) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). In Wayfair, the Court overruled National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), thereby allowing States to require sellers with no physical presence within their b......
  • PROCEDURAL LOSSES AND THE PYRRHIC VICTORY OF ABOLISHING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 5, June 2022
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...Janus, 138 S. Ct. 2448; S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018) (overruling Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (328.) See June Med. Servs. L.L.C, v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2134-35 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). As commentators noted, Chief Justice Rob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions
  • IL Register Vol. 43 Issue 46. Issue 46 - November 15, 2019 – Pages 13,160–13,353
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • Invalid date
    ...See, for example, Scripto v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960); National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967); Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). In 1996, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that remote retailers need only "more than......
  • IL Register Vol. 42 Issue 39. Issue 39 - September 28, 2018 - Pages 16,965-17,281
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • Invalid date
    ...See, for example, Scripto v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960); National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967); Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). In 1996, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that remote retailers need only "more than......
  • Chapter 95, SJR 1 – Remote sales: use taxes
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 2009
    ...thePresident to sign that legislation. WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court decisions (National BellasHess v. Department of Revenue (1967) 386 U.S. 753 and Quill Corp. v.N.D. (1992) 504 U.S. 298) have interpreted the Commerce Clause of theUnited States Constitution to deny states the author......
  • SB 1 – revise certain provisions regarding the collection and remittance of certain taxes by remote sellers and to declare an emergency
    • United States
    • South Dakota Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...The Court's decisions in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967), should be, and now are, overruled. Wayfair, 138 S.Ct. at 2099. With the Supreme Court's decision in Wayfair that the physical presence ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT