Question

3. In South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the Supreme Court:

A. Reaffirmed the “physical presence” requirement and held that the State’s efforts to require defendants to collect sales tax violated Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

B. Held that because the defendants had no employees or real property in the State, they could not be required to collect sales tax consistent with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

C. Overruled prior precedent and held that the defendants were subject to State jurisdiction because they had sufficient “minimum contacts” with the State consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

D. Overruled the “physical presence” requirement and held that out of state sellers could be required to collect sales tax, consistent with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, when defendants’ virtual and economic contacts with the State were sufficiently substantial based on the amount of goods sold to customers in the State.

Answer 1

I've attached Handwritten solution for the given problem.

Supreu A sol: Tu south Dakota v. wayfair, Inc., the ane Court Reaffirened the physical presence requirement and held that the states efforts to require defendants to collect sales tax violated commerce Clause of the us. Constitution.