Tag Archives: South Dakota

Eight State Attorneys General Urge Eighth Circuit Not To Expand Scope of Title VII

State attorneys general from Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, and South Dakota have joined Arkansas (collectively the “States”) in an amicus brief to the Eighth Circuit, urging the court not to join the Seventh Circuit and Second Circuit in interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

Read more

Read full article

South Dakota Supreme Court Limits Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Clause in Non-Compete Agreement

Whenever possible, restrictive covenants should be carefully worded to track the language of applicable law in the jurisdiction where they will be enforced. The South Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision in Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. v. Dolly provides a strong reminder of this lesson.  The case concerned an action by Farm Bureau to enforce a restrictive covenant against Ryan Dolly who had worked for Farm Bureau as a captive life insurance agent. Dolly’s contract with Farm Bureau contained a restrictive covenant providing that Dolly would “neither sell nor solicit, directly or indirectly…any insurance or annuity product, with respect to any policyholder of [Farm Bureau]… for a period of eighteen (18) months following the termination of” his contract.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

50 out of 50: Every state in the US now has a breach notification law

The day has finally come. Every state in the U.S. now has a breach notification law, despite constant pressure for one uniform national law. Alabama and South Dakota have joined the 48 other states and the District of Columbia in enacting data breach notification statutes days apart, with South Dakota’s statute enacted on March 21, 2018, and Alabama’s statute enacted on March 28, 2018.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

United States Supreme Court will hear South Dakota’s case addressing tax obligations of out-of-state retailers

To the delight of the state of South Dakota, the United States Supreme Court accepted its case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, on Jan. 12, 2017. The crux of this lawsuit is the legal permissibility of South Dakota’s spring 2016 law, SB 106, which has a purpose to “provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers.” Ultimately, SB-106’s objective is to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North DakotaQuillbanned states from requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on products they ship into those jurisdictions, absent some minimal contact or physical presence.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Report: Caution warranted despite robust income tax growth in the first quarter of 2017

Last week, we published an article that addressed South Dakota’s lawsuit over the state’s ability to tax internet sales made by vendors that lack a physical presence in the state. Whether states will finally be able to capture those otherwise lost tax revenues is now in the United States Supreme Court’s hands.

In addition to the dearth of sales tax revenues with which states are contending, our article also discussed the volatility of revenue streams that compounds already precarious fiscal situations. We pointed to an October 2014 Pew Charitable Trusts article, “Volatile Income Tax Revenue Stumps States,” which asserted that even though some states’ tax collections have recovered somewhat since the recession, and in fact are expected to rise, this growth “is anemic compared to years preceding the recession.”

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

South Dakota: Online sales tax case in US Supreme Court’s hands

We posted an article not even a month ago describing South Dakota’s latest loss in the ongoing dispute between the state on one hand and several internet retailers on the other, over the permissibility of taxing online sales. After the oral arguments, which we also detailed, the South Dakota Supreme Court did not take long to reach its conclusion: that the state did not have the authority to impose sales and tax laws on the retailers, Wayfair, Overstock.Com, and Newegg, because they lack a physical location there. South Dakota vowed to take its next, and last possible step, to the United States Supreme Court.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

South Dakota: State Supreme Court sides with sellers in the battle for online tax revenue

n eagerly awaited opinion that the South Dakota Supreme Court filed last week says that the state’s hands must remain tied when it comes to taxing the sales of internet retailers.

It was just two weeks ago that we addressed the positions each side presented to the state Supreme Court during oral arguments. To recap, the plaintiffs, internet sellers Wayfair, Overstock.Com, and Newegg, were fighting the state law, SB 106, that required remote sellers with no physical location in South Dakota to remit sales tax, and follow all procedures of the law, if they meet one of two criteria in the previous calendar year or the current calendar year:

  1. The remote seller’s gross revenue of sale of tangible property, any products transferred electronically, or services delivered into South Dakota, exceeds $100,000.
  2. The remote seller has 200 or more separate transactions tangible property, any products transferred electronically, or services delivered into South Dakota.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

South Dakota: State Supreme Court hears oral arguments in nexus lawsuit

In the ongoing legal saga between internet retailers Wayfair, Overstock.Com, and Newegg, and South Dakota, the Supreme Court of South Dakota heard oral arguments last week on the familiar question of how much leeway states have to impose sales and use taxes on out of state internet retailers who arguably have no physical presence in the taxing jurisdiction.

South Dakota asserts that the main issue presented is whether precedent prevents “South Dakota from imposing an otherwise valid sales tax collection on retailers who lack a ‘physical presence’ within the state.” In addition, the State also presented a second issue on the court, “whether the United States Supreme Court should reconsider its decision in [the 1992 case] Quill Corp. v. North Dakota…” Quill prohibits states from imposing sales and use tax obligations on remote retailers in the absence of a physical presence in the taxing state, pursuant to the dormant commerce clause.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

States’ online tax laws continue to prompt lawsuits

There is no end in sight for legal challenges to state government efforts to tax remote sales. The latest involves a lawsuit that Bloomberg made available online, filed by NetChoice and the American Catalog Mailers Association. They say that a new Tennessee administrative rule violates the precedent established in the now familiar 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Quill Corp. v North Dakota, which made it unconstitutional for states to impose a use tax collection duty on out of state sellers with no physical presence in that jurisdiction.

The new administrative rule that the suit is premised on contains a nexus provision calling for “[o]ut-of-state dealers who engage in the regular or systematic solicitation of consumers in this state through any means,” with sales to in-state consumers of more than $500,000, to register with the Department, and collect the applicable sales and use taxes on those sales.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

States and online retailers continue to battle over sales tax laws

SOUTH DAKOTA

Less than a year ago, we wrote about a taxing provision that South Dakota lawmakers passed in an effort to quell revenue losses attributable to out-of-state internet sellers who do not have enough of a connection, or nexus, with the state to be subject to sales tax collection and remittance obligations. That law, SB 106, effective May 1, 2016, set a threshold of $100,000 of in-state sales, or 200 separate transactions, above which an out-of-state retailer would be required to collect and remit sales taxes.
Read full article