Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkampred2 sentences2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 | 4 | 4 |
Lanco v. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAX.green2 sentences2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 | 2 | 3 |
Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen2 sentences2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 2014Thus, the critical issue is whether the taxpayer must have a physical presence in the state in order to constitute the required “substantial nexus” necessary to satisfy the Commerce Clause under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), which applied that test and held physical presence was necessary in the context of a sales and use tax. [Id. at 563-64, 879 A.2d 1234 .] The holding of the Appellate Division was also clear: We agree with the Director that Quill does not apply to taxes other than sales and use taxes, Quill, supra, 504 U.S. at 314 , 112 | 2 | 2 |
National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenuered2 sentences2006See id. at 314, 112 S.Ct. at 1914 , 119 L.Ed.2d at 108 (“[W]e have not, in our review of other types of taxes, articulated the same physical-presence requirement that [Nat.] Bellas Hess[, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, State of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 , 87 S.Ct. 1389 , 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967)] established for sales and use taxes____”). 2006See id. at 314, 112 S.Ct. at 1914 , 119 L.Ed.2d at 108 (“[W]e have not, in our review of other types of taxes, articulated the same physical-presence requirement that [Nat.] Bellas Hess[, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, State of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 , 87 S.Ct. 1389 , 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967)] established for sales and use taxes____”). | 1 | 2 |
Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2005In Geoffrey Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 313 S.C. 15 , 437 S.E. 2d 13, 18 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S.Ct. 550 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 451 (1993), the Supreme Court of South Carolina noted the distinction between the taxes involved in Quill and income taxes: It is well settled that the taxpayer need not have a tangible, physical presence in a state for income to be taxable there. 2003Then, the opinion summarily concludes, in a footnote, that in Quill the Supreme Court “revisited the physical presence requirement of Bellas Hess and, while reaffirming its validity as to sales and use taxes, noted that the physical presence requirement had not been extended to other types of taxes.” 437 S.E.2d at 18, n. 4 . | 1 | 2 |
Vassilidze v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen1 sentence2009See Lanco, supra, 188 N.J. at 383 , 908 A.2d 176 (holding that Director "constitutionally may apply the Corporation Business Tax notwithstanding a taxpayer’s lack of physical presence in New Jersey"). 6 It goes without staying that "a regulation promulgated by the Director must be upheld unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that the regulation is arbitrary, capricious, unduly onerous or otherwise unreasonable!,]” and that “[o]nly a regulation that is out of harmony with the statute will be invalidated by the court as exceeding delegated authority to interpret the law.” Vassilidze v. Dir., Div. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. J. C. Penney National Bankgreen1 sentence2006See id. at 314, 112 S.Ct. at 1914 , 119 L.Ed.2d at 108 (“[W]e have not, in our review of other types of taxes, articulated the same physical-presence requirement that [Nat.] Bellas Hess[, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, State of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 , 87 S.Ct. 1389 , 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967)] established for sales and use taxes____”). | 1 | 1 |
Scripto, Inc. v. Carsongreen2 sentences2003See Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 , 80 S.Ct. 619 , 4 L.Ed.2d. 660 (1960). 2003See Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 , 80 S.Ct. 619 , 4 L.Ed.2d. 660 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
green
2 sentences2005In Geoffrey Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 313 S.C. 15 , 437 S.E. 2d 13, 18 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S.Ct. 550 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 451 (1993), the Supreme Court of South Carolina noted the distinction between the taxes involved in Quill and income taxes: It is well settled that the taxpayer need not have a tangible, physical presence in a state for income to be taxable there. 2005In Geoffrey Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 313 S.C. 15 , 437 S.E. 2d 13, 18 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S.Ct. 550 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 451 (1993), the Supreme Court of South Carolina noted the distinction between the taxes involved in Quill and income taxes: It is well settled that the taxpayer need not have a tangible, physical presence in a state for income to be taxable there. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Secretary v. Gap (Apparel), Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Clearly, the intangibles have acquired a business situs in Louisiana and are subject to taxation in this state. [ Gap, supra, 886 So. 2d at 462 .] We are satisfied that the physical presence requirement applicable to use and sales taxes is not applicable to income tax and that the New Jersey Business Corporation Tax may be constitutionally applied to income derived by plaintiff from licensing fees attributable to New Jersey. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
A & F TRADEMARK, INC. v. Tolson
green
2 sentences2005While the Supreme Court may ultimately choose to expand the scope of the physical-presence test reaffirmed in Quill beyond sales and use taxes, its equivocal reaffirmation of that test does not readily make that choice self-evident. [ A & F Trademark, supra, 605 S.E. 2d at 194 .] The North Carolina court in A & F Trademark further stated that the retention of the Bellas Hess test in Quill was based on the principle of stare decisis and the "substantial reliance" on the physical-presence test, which had "become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry." Ibid. (quoting Quill, supra, 504 2005While the Supreme Court may ultimately choose to expand the scope of the physical-presence test reaffirmed in Quill beyond sales and use taxes, its equivocal reaffirmation of that test does not readily make that choice self-evident. [ A & F Trademark, supra, 605 S.E. 2d at 194 .] The North Carolina court in A & F Trademark further stated that the retention of the Bellas Hess test in Quill was based on the principle of stare decisis and the "substantial reliance" on the physical-presence test, which had "become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry." Ibid. (quoting Quill, supra, 504 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
green
2 sentences2005Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Tax Court and remand for further proceedings relating to the tax imposed consistent with this opinion. [5] NOTES [1] We need not comment on the Tax Court's thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the Due Process issue, see Lanco, supra, 21 N.J. 2005Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Tax Court and remand for further proceedings relating to the tax imposed consistent with this opinion. [5] NOTES [1] We need not comment on the Tax Court's thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the Due Process issue, see Lanco, supra, 21 N.J. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.