South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018): Online Sales Tax Changed for Everyone | Tax Help Guy

South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018) rewrote sales tax rules for online shopping. See why it matters, how it affects everyday buyers and small businesses, and what compliance now looks like.

2025-12-03 tax-law, online-sales, state-tax

Citation:South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018).

Why This Case Was a Turning Point

Wayfair overturned decades of precedent fromQuill(1992), allowing states to require remote sellers to collect sales tax based on sales volume, not physical presence. The Court emphasized that e-commerce blurred state lines and physical presence no longer captured modern commerce.

Big shift:“Economic nexus” lets states set revenue/transaction thresholds (e.g., $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions) that trigger collection duties for remote sellers.

How It Affects Everyday Citizens

  • Online prices now include sales tax:Consumers see more consistent tax on remote purchases, reducing surprises at filing time.
  • Fairness for local stores:Main-street businesses no longer compete with online sellers on a tax-free price gap.
  • Better-funded state services:Sales tax collections now flow to states even when purchases come from out-of-state retailers, supporting schools, roads, and safety nets.

Impact on Small Businesses

Wayfair created compliance complexity for small and mid-sized online sellers who must track thresholds in multiple states, register, collect, and remit. States responded with simplified systems (e.g., SST states) and safe harbors, but compliance software costs and filing burdens increased.

Practical Takeaways

  • Track your revenue by state monthly to see if you cross any economic nexus thresholds.
  • Use sales tax automation tools to manage rate changes and filing calendars.
  • Consider marketplace facilitator rules—many platforms now collect on your behalf.

Need help with post-Wayfair compliance?

We help remote sellers and marketplace merchants register, collect, and remit correctly.

Call (760) 249-7680

More Articles Like This

Coming Soon.

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.



Judge Learned Hand
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F
Judge Learned Hand

Text anytime!

Joe "Tax Help Guy"
951 203 9021


Download my contact info