The 2018 US Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair is arguably the court’s most consequential state tax decision in a generation, perhaps longer. The Wayfair decision overturned the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Quill (itself a continuation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Bellas Hess a quarter century earlier), which had prohibited states from imposing a use tax collection obligation on vendors without a physical presence in the taxing state. Although the decision marks a welcome milestone in the development of the retail sales tax as an effective destination-based consumption tax, the court’s decision also invigorates the constitutional principle of state autonomy in fiscal matters, leaving the imposition of any constraints on state taxing power to Congress. However, unlike in earlier eras when Congress responded to court decisions with new statutory limits, today’s Congress faces historic polarization and legislative gridlock, reducing the likelihood of federal reforms designed to promote uniformity and simplification.

中文翻译：

---

宪法视角下的 Wayfair：谁制定了美国财政联邦制的基本规则？

2018 年美国最高法院在南达科他州诉 Wayfair 案中的裁决可以说是该法院在一代人甚至更长的时间里做出的最重要的州税收裁决。Wayfair 案的判决推翻了最高法院 1992 年在 Quill 案中的判决（其本身是 25 年前最高法院在 National Bellas Hess 判决的延续），该判决禁止各州对没有实体存在的供应商征收使用税。状态。尽管该判决标志着零售税作为一种有效的以目的地为基础的消费税的发展过程中的一个可喜的里程碑，但法院的判决也激发了国家在财政事务上自治的宪法原则，使对国家征税权的任何限制国会。然而，