Amicus Curiae Brief — Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

Supreme Court brief1992

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Bupreme Court, U.S,

FILED

oy) we 26 wae

No. 91-194 DAROE OF THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1991

QUILL CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,

BY AND THROUGH ITS TAX COMMISSIONER,

HEIDI HEITKAMP,

Respondent.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of

The State Of North Dakota

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE MULTISTATE TAX

COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

James F. Fiuc*

MartTIN LOBEL

Lee E. Hetrricu

Lois M. McKeNNA

Lospet, Novins, LAMONT

& FLuc

1275 K Street, N.W.

Suite 770

Washington, D. C. 20005

(202) 371-6626

Counsel for Amicus Curiae,

Multistate Tax Commission

*Counsel of Record

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

Yo, fal

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether a state may require an out-of-state retailer

whose direct sales into the state are facilitated and bene

fitted by the state, to collect its use tax?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTIOORITERS . ...svsccccnccstuneneeee iv

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE............. 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

“THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW”......... 2

ARGUMENT ......cccc0ceeenns 650 seen nnn 7

I. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF A PHYSICAL

PRESENCE RULE WOULD BE TO ENSHRINE

INEQUITABLE DISTINCTIONS AND

ENCOURAGE AVOIDANCE OF TAX COLLEC-

TION RESPONSOBILITIOS. .....-0sccsccsscsses 7

Il. COLLECTING STATE USE TAXES IS NOT AN

IMPERMISSIBLE BURDEN ON COMMERCE; IT

IS A NORMAL BUSINESS FUNCTION WHICH

QUILL NOW PERFORMS FOR THREE STATES,

AND MANY OTHER CATALOGUE SELLERS

PERFORM FOR MANY MORE STATES........ 13

Ill. CONGRESS, RATHER THAN PREEMPTING

COURT OR STATE ACTION BY ITS INAC-

TION, HAS LEFT THE FIELD TO THE STATES

AND THES COURT .......ccescesseuueeee 21

A. This Court Has Made Clear That Congress

Will Not Be Deemed To Pre-empt The States

In The Absence Of Clear Legislative Pre-

emption Or Complete Occupation Of The

. See 22

B. Congress’ Conscious Exclusion Of Sales

Taxes From Its 1959 Legislation On Out-Of-

State Solicitation, Its Silence After Stat-

utorily Mandated Studies In 1964-65, And

Its Inaction Since 1985 On The Bellas Hess

Issue Show That Action Here Must Come

From The States And The Court.......... 23

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

C. The States, Individually And Through Multis-

tate Action, Have A Mutual Interest With Tax-

payers In Implementing The Economic

Presence Test Reasonably And Efficiently.... 27

EE ooo 30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

—- Hess Corporation v. Director, Division

of laxation, New Jersey Dept. of the Tr

490 U.S. 66 (1989)... ee

Bloomingdale’s By Mail Ltd. v. Huddleston, No

89-3017-II (Ch. App. March 21, 1991), appeal filed

No. 01-S01-9016-CH-0047 (Tenn. April 19, 1991) .... 25

Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc. v. Porterfield, 268

N.E. 2d 272 (Ohio 1971)................. ree, 1

Boswell v. Paramount Television Sales, Inc., 282

So. 2d 892 (Ala. 1973).............. MALTA 11

Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1989)..... 3, 8

California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393

GROUPS 6:5500% cope na eee eee: 23

Cally Curtis Co. v. Groppo, 572 A.2d 302 (Conn.),

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 77 (1990)................... 11

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traig]

peer P raigle, 421 U.S. 100

AO 4650906545 enekeaague ete 13

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Monta 45

eS” RRR BARA ates. mite 13

Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274

SP Pree paper AEs Ty 4, 14, 22, 24, 27

Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 110

MM. WOE GOI ono ede vc nvdeneececucnceesscsnscun 23

General Trading Co. v. lowa, 322 US. 335 (1944).... 14

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989)..... 3, 4, 22, 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Pave

Good’s Furniture House, Inc. v. lowa State Board

of Tax Review, 382 N.W. 2d 145, (lowa) cert.

ee Sr ee, ee I cs 04 cds cpa aeksk els heoees 11

Heublein Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 409

as & 9 Be ire reer ree 23, 24

L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 516

pe. @€ FF Ge Se | eer reer re 11

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Vermont, 445 U.S. 425 (1980)...... 4

Moorman v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267 (1978) ............... 21

National Bellas Hess, Inc., v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 753

RE erry ores Serre Tere ee passim

National Geographic v. California Board of Equal-

ination, 450 U.S. SSi CIG77) ... 02 ccceccccccevenes 15

Nelson v. Montgomery Ward, 312 U.S. 373 (1941).... 14

Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359

| eer err rrr Tyr reer rrr yr Te 11, 12, 14

North Dakota v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203

SE WOE oe xtevnees PPP OOP ETC ETT TE CTO Te TLL i

‘Northwestern States Portland Cement Company v.

Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959)................. 14, 24

Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation and

Revenue Department, 758 P.2d 806 (N.M. Ct.

App. 19GB)... cc ccccccccccodeceseresssessecscenens 11

Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs v.

Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495 (1988)......... 22

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, cert. granted, 60

U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991) (No.

| Per rer er er rere Torrey yy 5, 13, 14, 15, 25

~ ai

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

ng EET PERO PEON ere Rr Oraetce D spe eae 23

SFA Folio Collection, Inc. v. Bannon, 585 A.2d 666

(Conn. 1991), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2839 (1991) .... 12

SFA Folio Collection, Inc. v. Huddleston, No.

89-3015-III (Tenn. Ch. App. March 11, 1991)... .12, 25

Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 111

oe eer Spee rreee 4, 7, 21, 23, 27

United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax

Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978) ........... 2, 24, 25, 28

Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 US.

ER IRI a 8. i las eS ele 5 13

Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr.

Company, 160 Wis. 2d 53 (Wis. Sup. Ct. 1991),

cert. granted 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7,

a, SER rr ee Pry eerie mri is unpre 24

PPRLIES TEAL DEUTER TUE Sede Te eMac eee a, at, ao

Statutes & REGULATIONS

Pub. L. No. 86-272, 15 U.S.C. § 381 et seq. ...19, 24, 27

Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341................. 23

Va. Cope ANN. § 46.2-1079 (1991)

MIscELLANEOUS

Att St. Tax Guipe 4701 et seq (Max. Mac. 1991)....1, 2

AMERICAN Business INFORMATION: Lists OF 9 MILLION

Businesses (January 1991).......................... 10

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Barrie Pace, Ltp.: Winter SALE 1991 ................. 16

BUSINESSLAND, Powerrut. Propucts Powerkrrul Sou-

RS PICA era kes Ph SNe arene ee 16, 17

105 Cons. Rac. 16,362 (1959)... 2. ccc ccc ecccees 19, 24

Davis, The National Nexus Program: An Innovative

Approach to Multistate Tax Compliance, 1 Statr

ee I I og ca cbcc tosses eesessie 29

Direct Marxetinc [Various Issues]............. 9, 10, 19

Eppoie Bauer: Att. Week Lone (1991) ................. 16

Egol, Personalized Production, Catatoc Act (Oct.

eer eee Cie ee i er 18, 19

GoverRNING (August 1989)...............06 00 eee a

Gasenreace Catatoc (1991-1992) .........0cceeccecess 16

Harry AND Davin: 1991 Houpay Book or Girts....... 16

M. Tamari, IN THE Marketplace: JewisH Business

eS te Oe a Ane a ee ae Og Sains 6

Interstate Sales Tax Collection Act of 1987 and the

Equity in Interstate Competition Act of 1987: Hear-

ing on H.R. 1242, H.R. 1981 and H.R. 3521 Before

the Subcommittee on Monopoly and Commercial

Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, 100th

Come, 26 Sean. (IGOR)... cece cece ser eeeccccees 26

J.C. Penney Catatocue, Fall and Winter 1991 ..8, 16, 17

Lorp & Taytor: SIGNATURE SAvINGS (1991)............. 16

Miller, Data Mills Delve Deep to Find Information

About U.S. Consumers, Wall St. J., March 14,

SE ME cp hii oe ocwed eR BAEK GESENEG Cds ee ewe Kes 10

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Morse and Zimmerman, Efforts to Collect Sales Tax

on Interstate Mail Order Sales, Recent State Legis-

lation (1990) (prepared for presentation to the

National Conference of State Legislatures) ........ 25

Multistate Tax Commission Review, Vol. 1991, No.

IG aavine bara ek edb NG woud aac bikes's x’ 28

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SecuRITIES DEALERS, INC.,

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NASD, (1990)............. 28

Opposition to Sales Tax Idea Arrives in the Mail,

Baltimore Sun April 2, 1989 ...........0.......... 26

Paciott 2000 User’s Manuat (1990)................... 20

ee , 20

Quint. Semi-ANNUAL Orrice Propucts CATALOGUE,

Nov. 1991-April 1992 ........ .2, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19

Saks FirtH Avenue, Fouio: Resort 1991 ............... 12

Sears Catatocue (Spring/Summer 1991) ............. 16

St. Tax Guipe 9351 (CCH 1991).................... 1, 2

Time Macazine (Nov. 18, 1991) ..................2.-. 18

eee 20

No. 91-194

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1991

- r

QUILL CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,

BY AND THROUGH ITS TAX COMMISSIONER,

HEIDI HEITKAMP,

Respondent.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of

The State Of North Dakota

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE MULTISTATE TAX

COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE!

The Multistate Tax Commission (“MTC”) is the

administrative arm of the Multistate Tax Compact (the

“Compact”). Att St. Tax Guipe 9701 et seq (Max. Mac.

1991); St. Tax Guipe 9351 (CCH 1991). Nineteen States,

including the District of Columbia, have adopted the

Compact. In addition, fourteen states are associate mem-

bers. The Compact seeks to facilitate proper determina-

tions of state and local tax liability of multistate

1 Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent have consented

to the filing of this Amicus Curiae Brief. Their letters of consent

have been filed with the Clerk of the Court.

taxpayers, promote uniformity or compatibility of state

tax systems, facilitate taxpayer convenience and compli-

ance, and avoid duplicative state taxation. Article I, Com-

pact, Att St. Tax Guipe 9701 (Max. Mac. 1991), St. Tax

Guipe 4351 (CCH 1991). The Court recognized the val-

idity of the Compact in United States Steel Corp. v. Multis-

tate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978).

As described in further detail in Part III.C of this

Brief, the Commission, through its “uniformity” process,

its National Nexus Program, and ongoing discussions of

coordination and uniformity issues with direct marketers

and their trade association, has been directly involved in

the issue of collection of sales and use taxes by interstate

direct marketers. The Commission expects these activities

to continue and expand as additional state legislatures

adopt laws like the North Dakota law at issue here, in

response to the growth of the direct marketing industry

and its increasing share of retail sales in each state. By

eliminating artificial distinctions among competing, func-

tionally equivalent marketers, affirmance of the decision

below will help to accelerate the process of coordination

and cooperation among the states, and between states

and taxpayers, which the Commission seeks to foster.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

“THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW”

To a lay observer, the thought that a small out-of-

state retailer with one travelling salesman visiting North

Dakota would have to collect North Dakota taxes on all

its North Dakota sales, but that Quill Corporation - with

a thousand employees,? over three thousand customers in

2 Quit Semi-ANNUAL Orrice Propucrs Caratocur, Nov.

1991-April 1992, at 363 (hereinafter “Qui Caracocue”). Copies

(Continued on following page)

North Dakota, and 24 tons of catalogues and a million

dollars worth of products sent into the state in a year? -

would not have to collect any North Dakota tax from its

customers, might seem absurd.

To some direct-mail marketers, that anomaly is worth

attempting to cast in constitutional concrete. It gives

them a distinct competitive advantage over fellow direct

mailers with multistate physical presence, and over all

local marketers, who must collect state tax on their over-

the-counter sales. In support of their position, they

invoke a single case, National Bellas Hess, Inc., v. Illinois,

386 U.S. 753 (1967), repeating its words at every oppor-

tunity, in hopes that repetition will lend substance to

their proposition that in-state physical presence is a con-

stitutionally necessary condition for tax jurisdiction, even

though it is not necessary for most other types of jurisdic-

tion. See, e.g., Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462

(1989).

The legal response to their claim is not complicated:

1. Bellas Hess is the product of a different legal era

when “the Commerce Clause was thought to prohibit the

States from imposing any direct taxes on interstate com-

merce. [Citations omitted]. Consequently, the distinction

between intrastate activities and interstate commerce was

crucial to protecting the States’ taxing power.” Common-

wealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 614-15 (1981).

See Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 265 n.16 (1989).

(Continued from previous page)

of all catalogues cited have been lodged with the Clerk, and

selected excerpts are contained in the Appendices. See Bellas

Hess, 386 U.S. at 761, n. 2 (Fortas, J., dissenting).

3 North Dakota v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 204, 218

(N.D. 1991); Appendix to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at

A2, A34 (hereinafter “Pet. App.”).

2. In Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274

(1977), the Court “renounced the formalistic approach” of

its earlier cases, and decided instead “to avoid formalism

and rely upon a ‘consistent and rational method of

inquiry [focusing on] the practical effect of a challenged

tax.” ” Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 111S. Ct.

818, 828 (1991) (quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Vermont, 445

U.S. 425, 436-7 (1980)) (brackets in original). Since 1977

there has been no constitutional bar to state taxation of

interstate commerce as long as it meets the four-prong

test of Complete Auto.

3. Subsequent cases have driven home the obsoles-

cence of Bellas Hess. Goldberg v. Sweet distinguished Bellas

Hess and applied the Complete Auto test to sales of inter-

state communications services into a state, finding the

test satisfied where the sales were billed or paid in the

state. Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 263. The Goldberg holding

applies a fortiori to the facts here: sales of tangible goods

into a state. In Trinova, the Court emphasized the “value

added” by sales into a state, and found jurisdiction to tax

such value not because of, but in spite of, a minuscule

physical presence of the seller in the state. Trinova, 111 S.

Ct. at 830, 833-834.

4. Here, as in Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 254, the change in

legal environment is complemented and fueled by a

change in the technological environment, symbolized by

the change in basic concept from “mail order” to “direct

marketing,” and facilitated by the universal availability

of toll-free “800” numbers, inexpensive computers, over-

night express service, computerized selective mailing

lists, and bank credit cards.

These legal points are treated in scholarly detail in

the briefs of North Dakota and its other amici, who collec-

tively demonstrate that the Complete Auto tests are met

here with flying colors. The Multistate Tax Commission

will not duplicate their arguments. Instead, the Commis-

sion, a hands-on body of state tax administrators which

deals with the practical realities of state tax policies and

procedures, will focus its attention on the plea for equita-

ble relief to which Petitioner and its allies, perhaps antici-

pating the strength of the legal arguments against them,

appear to retreat.

In éssence, Quill argues that it should not be subject

to North Dakota’s tax laws because it doesn’t get much

benefit from North Dakota. The fact is that Quill has so

many contacts with the state, and every other state it sells

into, that the Court could avoid confronting the obsoles-

cence of Bellas Hess, by finding enough of what Petitioner

calls “chimerical” presence,4 to meet the facial standards

of that case. Even apart from the catalogues and packag-

ing and waste from its products strewn all over its cus

tomers’ states, Quill has direct presence in each state, as

shown in Section | below. It maintains in-state agents to

set up equipment and service computers. It leaves its

computer software in the hands of its customers, and it

checks their credit through local banks. The fact that even

Quill can be found to meet this supposed “bright line”

test of physical presence, notwithstanding its efforts to

remain isolated by eschewing “800” numbers? and, until

recently, by refusing credit card sales from North Dakota,

demonstrates why the test is meaningless, and why the

Court should not rely on it to affirm the decision below. A

decision on this narrow basis would merely postpone the

inevitable and deprive the states and the direct marketing

industry of definitive guidance based on the practical

4 Brief for Petitioner at 46 n. 43, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,

cert. granted, 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991) (No.

91-194) (hereinafter “Pet. Br.”). 7

5 Pet. Br. at 4.

realities of direct marketing in the United States in the

1990's, and the predictable expansion of the industry in

the years ahead. Quill’s most important presence in

North Dakota is its economic presence, not its computer

disks or its repair people, and the case should be decided

on that basis.®

Quill’s fallback equity argument is that compliance

with North Dakota’s use tax law would be too much of a

burden. This argument requires the Court to believe that

the direct marketers, who are at the frontier of comput-

erized demographic research and data manipulation,

using the most advanced database and telecommunica-

tions equipment and software to identify, contact, and sell

to tens of millions of carefully selected Americans, are

unable to keep track of 47 states’ sales tax rates.

It should reassure Quill and the Court to know that

the task of collecting multiple state taxes, which so

frightens the Quills of the world, is one to which large

numbers of its fellow direct marketers have accommo-

dated. Moreover, the states, through the Multistate Tax

Commission and individually, are just as anxious as the

direct marketers to simplify and coordinate their tax col-

lection activities. While these implementation issues are

not of constitutional magnitude, Quill and the Court may

also be comforted to know that this cooperative process

* The principle that sellers from afar who want to exploit

the local market must bear their share of local taxes is not a

new one. It was recognized in ancient Jewish law: “In the

Talmudic discussion, the ruling was quite clearly that foreign

and out-of-town merchants cannot be excluded, provided that

they pay the local taxes.” M. Tamari, IN THe MArkerplace: Jewrsi

Business Ernics 55 (1991). Tamari notes that “Non-payment of

taxes gives the competitor an advantage which cannot be

duplicated by the local merchants, no matter how efficient or

cost-conscious they are.” /d. at 61

has already begun between the states and marketers who

now collect state taxes in multiple states.

Quill’s ultimate defense is to assert that the principle

it reads into Bellas Hess is subject to revision only by

Congress. We show below that Congress, by both action

and inaction, has signaled the opposite conclusion: this

Court has the authority and responsibility to review and,

if appropriate, revise its own decisions, especially where

its prior statements are the source of serious conflicts.

Quill wants to have all the benefits of exploiting the

North Dakota market without bearing any of the bur-

dens. Exempting Quill from the well accepted business

responsibility of assisting in sales and use tax collection

would be unfair to the state and its taxpayers and unfair

to Quill’s competitors who do assist the state. Such an

exemption is neither required nor justified by the Consti-

tution, by this Court’s precedents, or by federal law

North Dakota’s legislature and Supreme Court acted rea-

sonably and lawfully in rejecting such an exemption and

their actions should not be disturbed.

ARGUMENT

I. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF A PHYSICAL PRES-

ENCE RULE WOULD BE TO ENSHRINE INEQUI-

TABLE DISTINCTIONS AND ENCOURAGE

AVOIDANCE OF TAX COLLECTION RESPON-

SIBILITIES

The general economic benefit from the “value added”

by Quill’s North Dakota sales, Trinova Corp., 111 5. Ct. at

830, and from its exploitation of the state’s “civilized

society”, Wisconsin v. J.C. Penney Co., 311 US. 435, 444

(1940), is more than sufficient to meet a constitutional

nexus test. But the list of Quill’s direct contacts with,

burdens on, and benefits from North Dakota dramatizes

why no reasoned distinction can be made between Quill

and either the local merchants or competing direct mar-

keters who happen to have sales agents or other physical

presence in the state. Quill’s “presence” includes:

~ the wear and tear on North Dakota’s roads

and the additional truck traffic and air pollution

attributable to the delivery of 24 tons of cata-

logues and a million dollars worth of (fre-

quently heavy) office supplies,

- the police and fire protection for the goods in

transit into and within the state,

- the disposal of the huge volume of catalogues

and many thousands of packages and wrap-

pings containing the delivered goods,”

- the availability of North Dakota courts and

collection agencies to collect overdue bills,

~ protection of Quill from unfair competition of

unscrupulous marketers of office products by

the consumer protection, law enforcement, and

licensing agencies of North Dakota,

- submission by Quill to North Dakota’s juris-

diction in respect to any applicable laws on

usury, fair credit practices, prohibited sales,

fraud, antitrust, warranties, limitations of lia-

bility, environmental protection, and food qual-

ity,®

? Pet. App. at A34.

* For examples of such limitations in other states, see J.C.

Penney Catatocue, Fall and Winter 1991, at 750 (enumerating

Ohio restrictions on credit, Wisconsin notice regarding credit

obligations incurred by spouses, Hawaii notice of state credit

sale law). See also Va. Cope ANN. § 46.2-1079 (1991) (prohibiting

use or sale of radar detectors). See also Burger King v.

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985) (“it is an inescapable fact of

modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business

is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across

state lines thus obviating the need for physical presence within

a State in which business is conducted”).

- the use of the state’s banks to obtain credit

references on customers,?

— the use of VISA and Mastercard accounts at

local banks to establish immediate credit,'°

- the provision of “ ‘inside delivery’ or ‘carry-in

with setup’ ” services at extra cost,"!

- for purchasers of computers, continuing tech-

nical support by telephone and “free on-site

service” for one year after purchase,'?

- the leasing of computer software to North

Dakotans, allowing them to access Quill’s com-

puter,!s

- the use of demographic information and

databases gathered in-state to generate solicita-

tion lists.'4

® Quill’s current order form asks new customers desiring

to be billed to provide “Bank Name, Bank Phone #, Bus.[iness]

Checking Account #, Person to Contact”. Quit Catarocur at

361.

10 Quit CaraLocue at 361. Although it appears from the

record that Quill for a time discriminated against North Dakota

customers by denying them the use of credit cards, its current

catalogue contains no such restriction.

11 Jd. at 365.

12 Jd. at 204.

13 Pet. App. at A29.

14 Direct marketers access lists segmented into a dizzying

array of lifestyle, life-event, demographic, geographic, and

previous purchasing characteristics. Direct Marketing maga-

zine each month carries an annotated listing of newly available

lists, numbering anywhere from 25-30 entries and encompass-

ing market segments ranging from “Texas Liberals (“file con-

tains 33,398 . . . Texas residents who have contributed to the

campaign of Gov. Ann Richards and other democratic candi-

dates”), New List Bank, 54 Direct Marketinc 1, May 1991 at 63,

to the “Portable Technology Database” (“last 12 months

buyers’ list contains 26,397 names at $100 [per thousand

(Continued on following page)

The fact is that most of this list would apply to every

direct marketer who substantially enters the North

Dakota market, whether or not it has a store, an agent, a

warehouse, or an office in the state. These are not factors

which show that Quill is unique in having the requisite

presence. Rather they show generically why “direct mar-

keters” are exactly what their self-selected name implies,

marketers who enter the local markets massively and

directly to do from a distance, with economies of scale

and modern telecommunications, precisely what local

marketers do in person: make sales to local citizens. A

rule which ignores this purposeful and pervasive eco-

nomic presence and focuses exclusively on physical pres-

ence no matter how slight or how separate from the

target of the tax, or which depends on a case by case

weighing of discrete contacts, will merely perpetuate a

tax dichotomy based on no functional difference.

Quill obviously cares about its customers, offering

them its own “Bill of Rights.”'5 But its customers have no

(Continued from previous page)

names]. These top corpurate officers are large volume buyers

of portable computers.”) New List Bank 53 Direct MarketiNc 12,

April 1991 at 56. The effort to add names of potential con-

sumers can start on the day of their birth. See Miller, Data Mills

Delve Deep to Find Information About U.S. Consumers, Wall St. &

March 14, 1991, at A-1. Raw name lists can then be enhanced

and sorted by zip code, income level, residence rates and socia!

position. See Advertisement, 54 Direcr Marxketinc 6, October

1991 p. 15. For those, like Quill, selling mainly to businesses,

lists are available by discrete business type (e.g. dishwashing

machine dealers), size of business (e.g. sales volume, number

of employees) or new business entries updated through tele-

phone directories, and can be sorted on a nationwide or indi-

vidual state basis. See AMERICAN Business INFORMATION: Lists oF 9

MILLION Businesses (January 1991).

'S Quit CataLocue at 363.

right to avoid payment of their state’s sales or use taxes,

when they order office furniture shipped from manufac-

turers in Michigan, Florida, California, New Jersey, Dela-

ware, or Tennessee'®, whether they order it from Quill by

phone, fax, or mail, or from another direct marketer who

sends a salesman to drop catalogues and take orders, or

from a local office supply store.'7 Quill’s exemption from

the use tax laws would not oniy place Quill at an unfair

competitive advantage over its in-state and out-of-state

rivals who collect the state’s tax, it would force these

competitors and their customers to generate the tax reve-

nues to pay for the state’s direct and indirect contribution

to Quill’s profit-making activity in the state.

Quill and its amici argue that a physical presence rule

is desirable, if not required, because it offers a purpor-

tedly “bright-line” test. Even putting aside the fact that

litigation all over the country demonstrates that the pre-

sent line is murky at best,'® what the “physical presence

16 Quit, CaTALoGueE at 291, 308-309.

17 See Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 366

(1941) (“ .. . respondent is in no position to found a constitu-

tional right on the practical opportunities for tax avoidance

which its method of doing business affords lowa residents”).

18 Compare Boswell v. Paramount Television Sales, Inc., 282

So. 2d 892, 893, 896-897 (Ala. 1973) (lease of films sufficient

nexus to out-of-state lessor) with Cally Curtis Co. v. Groppo, 572

A.2d 302, 303, 306 (Conn.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct 77 (1990).

Compare L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 516 A.2d 820,

823, 825-826 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986) (state visits by customer

service representatives sufficient) with Proficient Food Co. v.

New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 758 P.2d 806, 807,

808-809 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). Compare Good's Furniture House,

Inc. v. lowa State Board of Tax Review, 382 N.W. 2d 145, 146-147,

150 (lowa) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986) (noting local adver-

tising as a significant link) with Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc. v.

Porterfield, 268 N.E. 2d 272, 274 (Ohio 1971) (local advertising

insufficient to establish nexus).

test does is invite “formalistic” gaming of the system to

avoid state tax responsibilities. For example, Saks & Com-

pany, the parent of the Saks Fifth Avenue retail stores

throughout the nation, conducts its mail order activities

through a corporate subsidiary with physical presence

only in New York and California. Its “Saks Fifth Avenue

Folio” mail-order catalogues are intimately connected

with its store operations.'® Nevertheless it continues to

resist collecting use tax anywhere outside those two

states. If the Court does not update Bellas Hess, Saks Fifth

Avenue may continue to find itself on different sides of

the line in different states.2? On the other hand, if this

Court affirms the North Dakota decision, Saks Fifth Ave-

nue Folio will collect any appropriate taxes from all its

customers, just as its stores do. The fact that Saks Fifth

Avenue might not continue to attract some customers

who wish to escape state tax is not an argument for

maintaining the status quo. See, e.g. Nelson v. Sears

Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 366 (1941). It is, rather,

evidence of the unfair advantage some sellers currently

enjoy, and an argument for changing the status quo.

Surely any interpretation of the commerce or due process

clauses which encourages or assists tax avoidance, fosters

'? Each item lists the store department where it can be

purchased, except for certain items which are listed as not

available at stores or at all stores. Saks Fifth Avenue Folio

accepts Saks Fifth Avenue credit cards, uses Saks’ New York

City office for certain mail, and, as is clear solely from the

catalog cover, exploits the Saks name and good will. See Saks

ae Avenue, Fouio: Resort 1991 at 4, 50, Order Form following

p. 46.

20 Compare SFA Folio Collection, Inc. v. Bannon, 585 A.2d 666

(Conn. 1991), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2839 (1991), with SFA Folio

Collection, Inc. v. Huddleston, No. 89-3015-II1 (T.

March 11, 1991). ae

unfair competition between sellers of the same goods to

the same customers, and erects barriers to expansion of

sellers’ physical facilities into other states should not be

endorsed by this Court.

Il. COLLECTING STATE USE TAXES IS NOT AN

IMPERMISSIBLE BURDEN ON COMMERCE; IT

IS A NORMAL BUSINESS FUNCTION WHICH

QUILL NOW PERFORMS FOR THREE STATES,

AND MANY OTHER CATALOGUE SELLERS PER-

FORM FOR MANY MORE STATES.

Petitioner and its numerous amici complain that the

“burden” they would have to bear if they are subject to

North Dakota’s use tax law would cause “economic

chaos,” Pet. Br. at 9, and drive mail order companies out

of business. Brief of Amicus Curiae Direct Marketing

Association at 16, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, cert. granted,

60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991) (No. 91-194) (here-

inafter “DMA Br.”). Their claim echoes this Court’s con-

cern 24 years ago that collection of taxes for multiple

states would draw mail order companies into a book-

keeping morass. Bellas Hess, 386 U.S. at 759-760. But net-

ther the commerce clause nor due process guarantees

immunize businesses from all “burdens” in the states

whose economies they are exploiting. On the contrary,

this Court has said that “ ‘[iJt was not the purpose of the

commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate

commerce from their just share of state tax burden even

though it increases the cost of doing business.’ ads

21 Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609,

623-624 (1981) (quoting Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 42) U.S.

100, 108 (1975) quoting Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue,

303 U.S. 250, 254 (1938)).

| Even if “burden” were a triggering mechanism which

invokes the commerce or due process clauses,22 or a factor in

a “weighing” process with “contacts”, Pet. Br. at 7, in today’s

business environment this case does not raise a serious

“burden” issue. For the fact is that the additional procedures

which the decision below requires of Quill and others who

are resisting their state tax co!lection responsibilities are ones

which many of their competitors and fellow multistate mar-

keters have long accepted.

The Court’s pre-Bellas Hess decisions in Nelson v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359 (1941) and Nelson v.

Montgomery Ward, 312 U.S. 373 (1941), established fifty

years ago the requirement of tax collection from cata-

logue customers by those with local retail outlets. In 1944,

Justice Frankfurter, who was quite concerned about the

administrative burdens on taxpayers,2> upheld lowa’s

requirement that out-of-state sellers without local offices,

warehouses, or general agents collect its use tax, and

said, “to make the distributor the tax collector for the

State is a familiar and sanctioned device.” General Trading

Co. v. lowa, 322 U.S. 335, 338 (1944).24 The decision fifteen

?? Cc °

ie This appears to be the argument of at least one of

‘etitioner S amici. See, e.g. Brief Amici Curiae of American

Council for the Blind et al. at 22, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

te gaa 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991) (No.

23 See Northwestern States Portland Ceme

nt Co. v. Minnesota,

358 U.S. 450, 474 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

24 Justice Frankfurter thought that the existence of retail

Stores in-state in Sears and Montgomery Ward was “constitu-

tionally irrelevant”, General Trading, 322 U.S. at 338, and placed

no particular emphasis on the fact that General Trading used

travelling salesmen to solicit orders filled from out-of-state. In

this pre-Complete Auto case, the dissent said that the holding

was “that a state has the power to make a tax collector of one

— it has no power to tax.” Id. at 339 (Jackson, J. dissent-

ing >

years ago in National Geographic v. California Board of

Equalization, 430 U.S. 551 (1977), confirmed that local

presence of any type is a sufficient condition for tax

collection responsibility. Thus, many direct marketers are

fulfilling these tax collection responsibilities in multiple

states today, without “economic chaos” and without

being driven out of business. In fact, Quill itself is collect-

ing use taxes for the three states in which it has facilities.

Quit CataLocue at 361.

MTC’s review of over 150 recent catalogues (selected

randomly but unscientifically), discloses at least 33 which

require buyers in 15 or more states to remit use tax,

including 9 which call for remittance of tax for all 47

states (including D.C.) with use taxes. See Appendix A.

Another 30 of these catalogues collect taxes for 3 or more

states, as does Quill. Among those who collect for only

one or two states are such large, well-known marketers as

Saks Fifth Avenue Folio, and L. L. Bean. Id. Justice Frank-

furter’s “familiar and sanctioned device” is thus already

part of the normal business environment for many Inter-

state marketers, and there is no showing that those who

have so far avoided it are any less capable of fulfilling

this obligation than those who are meeting it now.

Some of Petitioner’s amici complain that they would

be forced to use costly catalogue space to inform cus-

tomers of their tax obligations.?°> Quill’s own order form,

typical of the middle ground used by many multistate

marketers, rebuts that argument. It merely has a small

25 See, e.g. DMA Br. at pp. 18-20; Brief of Amicus Curiae

Coalition for Small Direct Marketers at 19, Quill Corp. v. North

Dakota, cert. granted 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991),

(No. 91-194).

space in its computation form for “State Sales Tax”, and

in an effort to be helpful to its customers, lists the tax rate

in each of the three states where Quill has facilities. Quill

Catalogue, at 361. Some direct sellers assume that their

customers know the tax rates in their own states, and

merely instruct them to “add applicable state sales tax”.

See e.g., Lorp & Taytor: Sicnature Savincs, Order Form

following p. 34 (1991). Others list the states in which tax

is due, e.g. Greenreace Catatoc, Order Form following p.

8 (1991-1992) (listing 34 states), see App. B, or the states

which do not have sales taxes. E.g., Eonir Bauer: Att

Week Lona, Order Form following p. 24 (1991). Some give

additional information to assist the customer in calculat-

ing the tax. See, e.g., Barrie Pace, Lrp.: Winter Sate 1991,

Order Form following p. 24 (1991) (clothing exemptions);

Harry AND Davin: 1991 Howipay Book or Girts, Oxpek Form

FOLLOWING P. 18 (1991) (FOOD ExEMPTION); BusiINESSLAND, Pow-

exPUL Propucts Powerrut So_tuTions, Order Form following

p. 130 (1991) (instruciing exempt companies to include

their tax exempt certificate with their order). Sears does

not list any tax rates, but instructs customers to call its

“800” number to obtain calculation of shipping and han-

dling charges and taxes. Sears at 950B (Spring/Summer

1991). At the other extreme, J.C. Penney provides a com-

prehensive set of instructions: on its chart of shipping

information and return centers for each state, it also lists

the state sales tax rate, and other state-specific informa-

tion relevant to Penney merchandise (e.g. “omit tax on

footwear and clothing”). J.C. Penney, Faust. & Winter 1991

at 742, see App. C. The entire tax listing adds one column

to the six other columns on the chart.*6

26 Although not at issue in this case, Petitioner repeatedly

invokes its apprehension at the prospect of complying with

(Continued on following page)

_—

Of course, like Sears, most sellers have phone agents

who will compute the state tax and shivoping charges, or

check the customer’s computation, when the order is

taken or while the customer is filling out an order form.

Businessland, for example, offers to “confirm” the com-

putation for the customer. See BusinessiaNp, supra, Order

Form following p. 130. Just as Quill informs its customers

that “shipping charges, if applicable, will be added to

your total” by Quill (Qu: CataLocue at 361), Penney tells

its customers that overpayment of sales taxes will be

refunded, that late changes in taxes will be reflected in a

corrected invoice, and that on credit orders, “we'll figure

the tax and add it to your account.” J.C. Penney, supra at

741.

Each of these marketers has made its own market-

driven decision on how much space, detail, and help to

provide for this purpose. But the fact is that a marketer

who collects tax in all or most states can, if it wishes,

meet the need with no more order blank space than Quill

(Continued from previous page)

myriad local sales tax laws. As with state tax collections,

different direct marketers have chosen different ways to deal

with this issue. J.C. Penney, for example, notes to its customers

the states in which there are such taxes and leaves it to the

customer to apply them. See App. C. As noted below, if a

marketer wished, it could use modern computer printing tech-

nology to print local tax instructions on each catalogue cover

or order blank. In any event, this concern will be addressed in

the first instance by the marketers themselves, by state and

local tax authorities, and if disputes arise, by the state courts.

Only if some issue of constitutional moment arises will it reach

this Court. Certainly it should not be decided here in the first

instance, as a hypothetical matter and without a record

now provides. Moreover, the phone agents, who answer

questions about hundreds or thousands of catalogue

items and prices and shipping rules, have no difficulty

answering questions about a state’s tax rates. Whether

they look at Penney’s chart or type a zip code into their

computers, the information can be readily available.

Similarly, the claim that accounting for many states’

taxes would be beyond the bookkeeping capacity of a

direct marketer like Quill is frivolous. The large direct

marketers keep track of hundreds of thousands of cus-

tomers, orders, and items in stock on large computers.

They use the most sophisticated technologies to identify

the most desirable demographic targets for their wares,

and to decide how many and which catalogues to send

them.’” They buy, sell, sort, and refine huge mailing lists,

and compare them to individualized data bases with

detailed information on each prospective customer.28

Many already personalize the order forms in their cata-

logues with ink-jet printed names and addresses of the

recipient,2” and could undoubtedly add state-specific

information on sales taxes if they wished.%°

2? See Egol, Personalized Production, Catacoc. Act, October

1991 at 78. See also discussion n. 14, supra.

26 Id.

*% As the “P” column in App. A indicates, the vast major-

ity of the catalogues reviewed by MTC contained personalized

order forms.

*® It is now fairly common for mass magazines to contain

computer generated inserts containing the name of the sub-

scriber and localized information such as the location of the

nearest store of a national chain. See, e.g., Time, Nov. 18, 1991,

insert following p. 55, containing personalized message with

name of subscriber and location of nearest Radio Shack. “At

(Continued on following page)

In fact, Quill prides itself on its sophisticated com-

puter capacity. Its “integrated order fulfillment system,”

based on a 700 terminal “Unisys 110/1200 mainframe,”

provides its operators with “instant on-line access to

customer files and product information, . . . [and] credit

checking. . . . It determines which . . . warehouse will

handle the shipment and generates detailed picking

instructions for each order, complete with carton size and

weight.” It offers same-day shipment for orders received

by 4 p.m., and as soon as the personal computer at the

warehouse detects from the bar code on each package

that an order has been shipped, it signals the mainframe

to generate an invoice the same day.*! Clearly, for Quill,

going from 3 states to 47 will not be a significant prob-

lem.32

Even for the smaller direct marketer, computers capa-

ble of calculating and keeping track of tax receipts and

payments are readily available and inexpensive. At the

time of Bellas Hess, it was probably still true, as Senator

Keating said in discussing Pub. L. No. 86-272,33 that

“[s]mall firms simply cannot afford the electronic gadgets

now used by giant corporations for such purposes.” 105

Conc. Rec. 16,362 (Aug. 19, 1959). Now a fast, large

(Continued from previous page)

present, Fingerhut uses its merchandising / publishing system

to version [sic] its outer wraps based on the customer's geogra-

phy,” to accommodate each state’s “credit rules that have to be

expressed differently.” Egol, supra note 27.

*! Smith, The New Frontier, Dixect Markerinc, September

1991 at 37.

* It is interesting to note that part of Quill’s product line

includes tax forms. Quit Caratocur at 362.

33 See discussion Part III, Section B. infra.

Capacity personal computer which did not even exist in

1967 can be purchased by mail from Damark for $899.99,

monitor and basic software included.*4 Several well

reviewed business accounting programs can be pur-

chased for under $100, and more sophisticated programs

for under $300.35 Even if a marketer sets up its own sales

tax record-keeping system on a simple spreadsheet pro-

gram for its own state, the cost of adding additional

States after the first one is literally nil for hardware and

software. It takes only a few minutes’ time per state to

copy the initial spreadsheet and substitute each addi-

tional state’s tax rate.

Whether for large direct sellers with large computers

and large numbers of sales in each state, or smaller sellers

with small computers and small numbers of sales in most

States, this is hardly an issue of constitutional signifi-

cance. As more marketers collect for more states the task

can only get easier, for the software providers (after

designing programs to meet the needs of their own direct

mail sales) will compete to offer these programs at low

cost to all comers. Almost every direct marketer must

have some system for collecting and remitting sales and

use taxes for at least one state now. It is hardly a burden

at all, let alone a burden of constitutional proportions, to

4 Damark Advertisement, USA Today, Dec. 6, 1991 at 5b

(“In MN add 6.5% sales tax”).

azine Dec. 31, 1991 at 254 (offering accounting package with

multiple taxation feature for $298); Software Add-Ons Adver-

tisement, PC Macazine Dec. 31, 1991 at 431 (listing several

accounting programs retailing for as little as $29). One such

program, Pacioli 2000, provides capability for creating up to

1000 different sales tax codes. Paciot: 2000 User’s MANUAL at

127 (1990).

require that, as they and their markets grow, their respon-

sibility for collecting state use taxes grow as well.

Ill. CONGRESS, RATHER THAN PREEMPTING

COURT OR STATE ACTION BY ITS INACTION,

HAS LEFT THE FIELD TO THE STATES AND

THIS COURT.

Petitioner argues that the states are precluded from

enacting legislation like North Dakota’s, and that the

Court is precluded from allowing them to do so, because

of what Petitioner seems to think is Congress’ exclusive

responsibility to define the scope of state tax powers.

Petitioner quotes approvingly a commentator’s statement

that “making state tax law . . . is best left to Congress”

Pet. Br. at 45 n. 40. Fortunately for the nation’s federal

system, that view is not reflected in the Constitution, the

acts of Congress or the opinions of this Court. Making

state tax law is best left to the states. The Tenth Amend.

ment says so. U.S. Const. amend. X. And this Court has

repeatedly said so. See, e.g., Trinova, 111 S. Ct. at 836:

Moorman v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267, 279-80 (1978): Wisconsin v

|.C. Penney, 311 U.S. 435, 445 (1940).

Bellas Hess was not a provision of the Constitution or

a Congressional enactment. It was the Court's best inter-

pretation of the Constitution’s requirements given the

surrounding constitutional and factual fiamework at the

time. Whether or not the present members of this Court

would have assessed the then prevailing facts and consti-

tutional environment the same way as their predecessors

did twenty-four years ago, the Court must decide the

present case in the light of today’s constitutional and

factual context. Particularly in the field of state taxation,

the Court has never ceded to Congress the Court's consti-

tutional responsibility to clarify and modernize prior case

law. On the contrary, in such cases as Complete Auto and

Goldberg, it has moved the law forward with the economic

realities of business and technology.

A. This Court Has Made Clear That Congress

Will Not Be Deemed To Pre-empt The States

In The Absence Of Clear Legislative Pre-emp-

tion Or Complete Occupation Of The Field.

Petitioner cites no congressional enactment through

which Congress in the exercise of its power over inter-

state commerce has directed the states or the Court to

refrain from action in this field. Instead it cites Congress’

failure to produce legislation on the subject of this case

over the past six years. Pet. Br. at 35 n. 26.

But the silence of Congress, at least in the absence of

a comprehensive legislative framework inherently occu-

pying the entire field, is not a barrier to state action or to

this Court’s action. In Puerto Rico Department of Consumer

Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495, 504 (1988), this

Court said “preemption, if it is intended, must be explic-

itly stated.” There cannot be “a preemptive grin without a

Statutory cat.” Id. The Court demands “clarity and mani-

festness”, id. at 500, before it will find that Congress

intended to supersede the powers of the states. Thus, in

the absence of some affirmative action by Congress, the

states are free to do whatever the Court finds is not

barred by some constitutional constraint.

B. Congress’ Conscious Exclusion Of Sales Taxes

From Its 1959 Legislation On Out-Of-State

Solicitation, Its Silence After Statutorily Man-

dated Studies In 1964-65, And Its Inaction

Since 1985 On The Bellas Hess Issue Show

That Action Here Must Come From The States

And The Court

In general, Congress and the courts have historically

recognized the importance to federalism of non-interfer-

ence by the federal government with state taxing author-

ity. See California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393,

410-11 nn. 23, 24 (1982). As a matter of common law,

comity, and long-held statutory policy, federal courts

have refrained from interjecting themselves into the state

tax enforcement process. See e.g. Franchise Tax Board v.

Alcan Aluminum Limited, 110 S. Ct. 661 (1990); California v.

Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982); Rosewell v.

LaSalle National Bank, 450 U.S. 503 (1981). See also Tax

Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Of course, once state

remedies have been exhausted, this Court has met its

responsibilities to apply the constraints of the Constitu-

tion, but always with due respect for the proper role of

the states in designing their own tax systems. Trinova, 118

S. Ct. at 836; J.C. Penney, 311 U.S. at 444.

Three times in the postwar years, Congress has exam-

ined the scope of state taxing power over interstate busi-

nesses. But rather than signifying a legislative decision to

occupy the field or to pre-empt either state or Court

authority, Congress’ action each time shows that Con-

gress itself has left the issue in this case to the states,

subject only to the limits this Court may impose.

The Court has previously considered Congress’ 1959

action on the state income tax implications of sales solic-

itations by out of state businesses. See Heublein Inc. v.

South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 409 U.S. 275 (1972); United

States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452

(1978). See also Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William

Wrigley Jr. Company, 160 Wis. 2d 53 (Wis. Sup. Ct. 1991),

cert. granted 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. October 7, 1991) (No.

91-119). In that year, after this Court’s decision in North-

western States Portland Cement Company v. Minnesota, 358

U.S. 450 (1959), a precursor of Complete Auto Transit, 430

U.S. 274 (1977), many large interstate businesses, cor-

rectly anticipating that the Court was heading towards

eliminating its proscription of state taxes on interstate

transactions, went to Congress for anticipatory relief. The

result was Pub. L Wo. 86-272, 15 U.S.C. § 381 et seq.,

which prohibits imposition of state net income tax on

corporations based solely on solicitation of orders in the

state, where acceptance is outside the state. See Heublein,

409 U.S. at 280; United States Steel Corp., 434 U.S. at 455.

It is clear from the text and legislative history of the

Statute that Pub. L. No. 86-272 did not apply to sales taxes

because the framers of the statute intended that the states

continue to have full authority to levy sales taxes in

accordance with the Court's broadening view of state tax

powers Over interstate commerce.

For the next sixteen years, Congress was aware of

these issues but did nothing. As the Court later noted,

Congress in 1959

also authorized a study for the purpose of rec-

ommending legislation establishing uniform

standards to be observed by the States in taxing

%© See 105 Conc. Rec. 16,362 (1959) (colloquy between Sen-

ators Bush and Bennett).

income of interstate businesses. Although the

results of the study were published in 1964 and

1965, Congress has not enacted any legislation

dealing with the subject. [Court’s Footnote:

“There have been several unsuccessful

attempts.” [citing bills in 1965, 1966, 1971, 1973,

1975, including post-Bellas Hess bills that cov-

ered sales tax issues]].

United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434

U.S. at 455-6.

As Petitioner points out, Congress again took up the

Bellas Hess issue beginning in 1985, and regularly thereaf-

ter. Pet. Br. at 35. But again there was no congressional

action, despite the proliferation of so-called “anti-Bellas”

state laws,?? enforcement of those laws, increasing volun-

tary compliance with those laws,** and state court deci-

sions construing them.*? It should be pointed out that the

same interests which now claim that the legislative

branch is the only appropriate authority to act on Bellas

Hess fought vigorously to prevent congressional action to

close the Bellas Hess loophole during this period. In a

massive lobbying campaign, they enlisted their catalogue

3” Brief of National Conference of State Legislatures et al.

on Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 7 n. 6, Quill Corporation v.

State of North Dakota, cert. granted 60 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. Octo-

ber 7, 1991) (No. 91-194).

38 Morse and Zimmerman, Efforts to Collect Sales Tax on

Interstate Mail-Order Sales, Recent State Legislation, 12-13 and n.

35 (1990) (prepared for presentation to the National Conference

of State Legislatures).

39 North Dakota v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203 (N.D. 1991);

Bloomingdales By Mail Ltd. v. Huddleston, No. 89-3017-I1 (Ch.

App. March 21, 1991); appeal filed No. 01-S01-9016-CH-0047

(Tenn. April 19, 1991); SFA Folio Collection Inc. v. Huddleston,

No. 89-3015-III (Tenn. Ch. App. March 11, 1991).

customers to provide grassroots Opposition to the pend-

ing legislation. In fact, contradicting their present posi-

tion that only Congress, and not the Court, can act to

update Bellas Hess, their expert witness testified before

the House Judiciary Committee in 1988 that Congress was

precluded from acting because this Court had based

Bellas Hess on the due process clause, over which Con-

gress had no legislative authority, rather than solely on

the commerce clause, over which Congress has “plenary

power” .4!

This history leaves no doubt that Congress has not

occupied the field of state taxation of interstate com-

merce, nor in any way preempted state or Court action in

the field of state sales taxes. On the contrary, each of

Congress’ three ventures into this area have left the legal

_ 4° See Federal Report, GOVERNING, at 24 (August 1989): The

Direct Marketing Association ” . . . held a summit meeting to

plot strategy, and 300 companies contributed to a $1.5 inlilien

war chest, according to Robert Levering, vice president for

government affairs of the Direct Marketing Association In

addition 30 to 40 companies printed letters Opposing the ) lan

at their Own expense and have begun inserting them in a

chandise shipments to millions of customers.” Opposition to

Sales Tax Idea Arrives in the Mail, Balti ,

at 1A, 14A. il, Baltimore Sun, April 2, 1989,

* Testimony of Lucas A. Powe, Jr, on behalf of Dire

Marketing Association and Magazine Publishers Maines

on H.R.1242 and H.R. 3521, Interstate Sales Tax Collection Act of

1987 and the Equity in Interstate Competition Act of 1987: Hearing

on H.R. 1242, H.R. 1981 and H.R. 3521 Before the Subcommittee on

Monopoly and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary

100th Cong., 2d Sess. at 72 - 75 (1988): “The Court said due

process, and Congress cannot change due process decisions

Congress can change commerce clause decisions.” Id. at 72.

NS ee eee

_——a

landscape either untouched, or with a specific congres-

sional statement that it did not intend to affect sales

taxes.

Of course, if the Court affirms the decision below,

and Congress wishes to address issues left open by the

Court, or anticipate and resolve potential implementation

issues, Congress can do so within the scope of its power

over interstate commerce, as it did in 1959. See, Pub. L.

No. 86-272. The possibility that Congress might some day

act to improve on or supersede the Court’s action, how-

ever, is no reason for the Court not to act at all, when

faced with a clear constitutional controversy, especially

one generated by its own prior ruling.

C. The States, Individually And Through Multis-

tate Action, Have A Mutual Interest With Tax-

payers In Implementing The Economic

Presence Test Reasonably And Efficiently.

In such post-Complete Auto cases as Trinova, Goldberg,

and Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, New

Jersey Dept. of Treasury, 196 U.S. 66, 72 (1989), this Court

has emphasized that it will not attempt to impose a

particular tax formula on the states, even if that may

result in minor inconsistencies and inconveniences to

taxpayers. As long as the states are reasonable and non-

discriminatory in their tax structures, the Court will

allow them to choose their own tax rates, rules, and

procedures.

Of course the states have a shared interest in making

their tax systems as compatiblé and convenient as possi-

ble, and they have done so frequently in the past.

Through such mechanisms as the. Multistate Tax

Compact,4? which became effective in 1967, the Multistate

Tax Commission, established by the signatories to the

Compact, and the Uniform Division of Income for Tax

Purposes Act, adopted as part of the Compact by its

signatories, many states have demonstrated their interest

in “promoting uniformity and compatibility in state tax

systems” and “facilitating taxpayer convenience and

compliance in the filing of tax returns and in other phases

of tax administration.” 43

The MTC has already focused on the need for unifor-

mity and consistency in the sales and use tax area.

Through its “uniformity” process, Proposals for multi-

State action to coordinate state sales and use tax laws and

enforcement are developed, circulated for taxpayer and

other public comment, and recommended by the full

Commission for adoption by the states. See Muttistate Tax

Commission Review, Vol 1991, No. 1 :

; ' , ' at 21-22

pe (March

in addition, twenty-six states have joined MTC’s

National Nexus Program, which began in December 1990.

P * Considered and upheld by the Court in United States

teel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452 (1978).

*° United States Steel Corp., 434 U.S. at 45 |

Multistate Tax Compact). 4 : 6 (paraphrasing

™ The States have undertaken similar cooperative efforts

to simplify compliance with state law in other fields. For

example, the North American Securities Administrators Asso-

ciation and the National Association of Securities Dealers have

jointly developed a Central Registration Depository which

receives and processes state registration applications and fees

for brokers and their representatives for all states. See NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES Deacers, INc., AN IN oii

NASD, 13 (1990). ye Ae EROMCTN TD Tee

This multifaceted project provides assistance to states in

securing taxpayer compliance and to taxpayers in com-

plying with state tax laws. A key element is a central

repository of information on the states’ tax filing require-

ments. This information is available for distribution to

any company that needs to determine the filing require-

ments in several states. Where taxpayers are concerned

about potential past liability, the Program enables them to

discuss their exposure and to fashion settlements anony-

mously, before they register.*

It is well known to the parties and many amici in this

case that for the past year MTC and other state organiza-

tions have also been involved in discussions with the

Direct Marketing Association and individual direct mar-

keters in an effort to coordinate and simplify the adminis-

tration of sales and use taxes, regardless of the outcome

of this case. This Court’s affirmance of the decision below

would undoubtedly give new impetus to this process,

which allows the industry as a whole to bring its con-

cerns and suggestions directly to the responsible tax offi-

cials of a large number of states.

At the same time, affirmance will give clear guidance

to the individual states as they update and conform their

own statutes to accommodate developments in this

Court, and thus make unnecessary what will otherwise

be the continuing state experimentation with new ways

to address the Bellas Hess problem. Although this Court

need only decide the specific case presented to it -

involving collection of one state’s use tax — its analysis of

45 Davis, The National Nexus Program: An Innovative

Approach to Multistate Tax Compliance, 1 Stare Tax Norrs, 450,

451 (Nov. 25, 1991).

North Dakota law, including the de minimis standard

adopted by regulation, will substantially inform the other

States’ process of implementing the decision.

The Court can and should decide this case on the

constitutional merits with assurance that it will be in the

interest of each state, and of the States as a group, to

identify and address sub-constitutional inconveniences

which the Petitioner speculates may result from affir-

mance of the decision below.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the

Supreme Court of North Dakota should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

James F. Fruc*

Martin Lose!

Lee E. Hevrricn

Lois M. McKenna

Lose, Novins, LAMONT

& Fiuc

1275 K Street, N.W.

Suite 770

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 371-6626

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Multistate Tax Commission

“Counsel of Record

December 26, 199]

APPENDIX A

Catalogues Ranked By Number of States

for which Use Tax Is Collected

(“P” indicates whether order forms are personalized]

# Jurisd. Company P.

47 All Week Long Eddie Bauer Y

47 Businessland N

47 Eddie Bauer Home Y

47 Honeybee Y

47 J.C. Penney N

47 Laura Ashley Y

47 Sears N

47 Spiegel Y

47 The Ultimate Outlet —- Spiegel Y

35 Victoria’s Secret Y

34 Greenpeace Catalog N

34 Talbots N

33 The Disney Catalog Y

29 Godiva Direct Y

27 Egghead Discount Software — \

27 Sharper Image Y

26 Coach Y

25 Barrie Pace, Ltd. ,

24 Williams-Sonoma ,

23 Nature Company Y

22 Brooks Brothers ,

22 Carroll Reed Y

22 Harry & David ’ |

17 FAO Schwartz ,

16 Bachrach, by Mail Y

16 Lord & Taylor N

16 Neiman Marcus by Mail Y

16 Pottery Barn Y

15 Chambers Y

15 Hold Everything Y

14 Castitnes's &

13 — aes y Showcase of Savings

12 Horchow : After the Stork

12 Rand-McNally Y Bits & Pieces

7 Bloomingdale’s By Mail Ltd. y sen —

: Care Package Catalog N rightscree

National Wildlife Y Exposures

4 Orvis y Grill Lover’s Catalog

4 Tiffany & Co. M Lillian Vernon

8 Crate & Barrel] y Museum of Fine Arts

8 Laurel Burch ‘ Saks Fifth Avenue Folio

6 Unicef y Smythe & Co. |

/ Nordstrom N The Ben Silver Collection

6 J. Crew The Jewish Book Guide

. Clifford & Wills — <p —-

4 Global C - ouch oO ass Catalog

3 Just i: aaa wupyties a Toys to Grow On

Troll Learn & Play

wwowriariarimimimuitimimiiat mat matrtieat_at_imtimm_m WNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN WN WwW

KK eK KI KKK KKK KKK KKK KKK EK ZK KK KKK ZX XX

) Metro —_

S eaeeaae sheng ce Tweeds

- e Bicycle Sho Y ;

? Playclothes/Child Craft \ World Wide Games

5 Sesame Street, The Catalog ss Airline International P

4 Chelsea . Anticipations-Ross Simmons

4 Day-Timers . Aristoplay 7

4 Diamond Essence \ Art Institute of Chicago

4 Domestications \ Attitudes

4 Hammacher Schlemmer y SILA

4 Land’s End Y Caly & Corolla

4 Land’s End Kids y Casual Living

4 Mark, Fore & Strike y s Christina Stuart

4 Night & Day \ City Spirit |

4 Tapestry y Claudia Christy

3 Bike Nashbar ‘ Coldwater Creek

; Community Kitchens y DAK

MacWareHouse \ Damark

3 Quill \ Down’s

3 Ralieghs * Edgar B

3 Salvatore Ferragamo \ Eximious

Flax

el ee a a ee | i a a |

i i a |

el le ee

Fortune’s Almanac

Health Source

Hearth Song

Initials

J. Jill Ltd.

Jean Grayson’s Brownstone

Studio

Jennifer Austin

John Deere

Keeping In Touch

L. L. Bean

Lady Smith

Lew Magram

Lewis & Roberts

Musuem of Modern Art

Mystic Seaport

Museum Stores

Namark Funwear

Oriental Trading Co, Inc.

Pepperidge Farm

Play Fair Toys

Pleasant Co. New Baby

Collection

Potpourri

Scope

Scully & Scully, Inc.

Selfcare Catalogue

Signals

Source for Everything Jewish

Sporty’s

Storybook Heirlooms

Sundance

T. Anthony Ltd.

The Anatomical! Prod. Premier

The Competitive Edge

The Cottage Shop

The Mind’s Eye

<x KK TK KX <<< x <<

<<<<7

ZZ KK EK KK ww KKK

Ooocoooodo°o ee RB BB HS BS St

The Music Stand

The Paragon

The Personal Touch

The Pet Catalog

The Very Thing

The Writewell Co.

What on Earth

Wintersilks

Wireless

Wolferman’s

A.B. Lambdin

CitiDollars

Garnet Hill

Hanna Anderson

Herrington

Norm Thompson

Solutions

Total Number of Companies:

155

APPENDIX B

EXCERPT FROM GREENPEACE CATALOG

BEST AVAILABLE COPY®

tree With Every Order ihe Greenpeace Catuog ‘ hnciaiaitien , a “ te

On Greenpeace bumpe stecher lets th Th t ts produced under licensing Grechpeace USA and Leery dem presented mn this catalog ts made to the highest quality Uf you hare questions about a product, dba the statis af your order or need the

world tener ao cual Prathattions eatadatoasdae conart il provide a proceeds 10 standards If you are dissausfied for any reason, just retuen theviem — address af your nearest ( Heenpea e office, tee the Wanterland Customer

Greenpeace USA of over S0% of the available funds afier product Cost, sales tax, fulfillment costs. within 30 days for an exchange, credit or full refund. Fill in the Service Department at 1-800-327-3223, Monday through Friday, 6:30am to 6:00

seen oes packaging. phone service. catalog production costs. returns bad debts. mailing cosis, cic In addition to enclosed return form and send your package, insured via UPS or pun (PST) Sept. 1 June 30, 1992. Saturday 8:30 am to 1:00 pm (PST) through

f: fe \ AC 2 these funds, Greenpeace is pleased 10 be offering Greenpeace products for its supporters tu mvolee and Parcel Post (no CO.D 's accepted). We will do everything pussibleta — Jan 31, 1992, ar write to our Customer Service Department at P.O. Box 77048.

aes = express themselves in Greenpeace's worldwide efforts. handle your return quickly. San Francisco, CA 94107 0048

For Office Use Only Payment Method

— —_ (3 Check or moncy order encased (please no CO D's or cash) United States currency only.

BATCH ¢ ORDERS RECEIVED INITIAL (3 Charge to my account: I American xpress ‘J Visa Uo Mastercard

NOTE: CHARGE RECEIPT WILL READ CCC FOR GREENPEACE

Account No I xpuration Date

= : ae ~ 2 “Baer Gah SE SE Ae ae erat eS ee a ee ee Se |... £0 Qa

Ordered By:

ol a oe oe) ee ee ee ee es ee > a 9 ala - SP nin

EveningPhone {| | | Jjt{_j J a eS iar ae Signature Required with all credit card purchases Authorization No

PLEASE PRINT INFORMATION SHIP TO: If different from name and address at left

Name Naine

Address oo Address

City State lip Ate City State dp .

ee ees 3.0 - siateieditninsteipiimmaiciiainadinn " a

INDICATEIFSHIPTOIS J RESIDENTIAL J COMMERCIAL

tem Number Color Description PageNumber Suze Size Category Adult/Youth/Infant Quantity Price bach fotal

7,4,0,5| BLK —_| (EXAMPLE) ENDANGERED RAINFOREST T-SHIRT BORE ADULT 31 $1350} —- $X, 00

(mF amanss a Re En ee . ; -“

.. Ball . initiated i ne a — - ’

aioli sjeditbalemiaiatitbiiedi rlsiae naan ma = = |

we s , Se z —— =

NN — = .

alleutioedl amnane — ee a oe : — “an = — -4

EE ES iinet inal SS ee ; 7 .

Free With Every Order Our Greenpeace bumper sticker lets the world know you care

SHIPPING AND HANDLING: *add All Sales Tax For Delivery To: Subtotal

Mf shipping to more than one address compute delivery charges for each address. Purchase Amount Per Shipping Address AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC. FI. GA. 1A. It, IN, KS, KY, LA. MD. MI, MO, MS.

NC, ND, NE, NM, NV, NY, O14, OK, SC, TN, TX. UT. VA. WA. WIL & WV “Applicable Sales Tax

Continental U S. Fee Poster(ito3 Units} = dd gs SO Size Information Call Toll-Free to Charge Your Order i

———— ‘ : _ Foreign Orders. ---- —— Add $ 30.00 Adult sizes: Small (34-36). Medium (38-40). Creda Cards only $15.00 Minimum Shipping

$390.00... Lange (42-44), Extral (46. 48). Youth Sizes: -800- 456-4629

ssaoi ee Sieeee—___... $675 Check box for air. tatrs Seal (2-4, Snail 6-8). Medium (10-12, + en ay ne

$100.01 $2000... = gs o25 CurS@luelabel = Adds '§ 6.00 Large (14-16), Infant sizes: 12 mo. and 24 mo. ,

Over $2000. $s O Federal Express Standard. Add. § 9.00 When In Dowbt, Order One Size Larger. Please have your credit card handy and your order form filled in to read eons

Please Remember to the operator. toecign

1. Specify the style. size and color of each garment ordered. and whether Adult. Youth, or infant size 2. Order only sizes and cators lasted un the «at alog 3. Inctude delivery

Ce ee ee etndia Ciiadahn emvetn meee ta Green (or fill in information requested for creda card charge ) S. Print your All mail orders lor the Winter Holidays received in our office by December 2 TOTAL

name end address in the corner of the return envelope. 6. This fs the Greenpeace you will recetvc ia the mail join as in oar effortto and phone orders placed with our operators by December 5, will be shipped

Couserve resources - save it lor your orders through June 30, 1992 er recycie K te and friends. for arrtval by December 20, 1991. 2

-_—_———.

APPENDIX C

EXCERPT FROM J C PENNEY CATALOGUE

tps a6ed ‘uondes xe, SajeS eas—jUawAed

UI PEpNjou! BQ ISNW SajeIs ase) u! (De ‘Ald ‘AIUNOD) Saxe) jP907 O7}

Lp e6ed ‘uONndes xe] SajeS Bas—salels BSOU) UI SIBDIO AJBAIaQ

@woH Uo e6seys Bulj|pueYy-PUe-UONe)JOGSUBN 0} SEHOde xe} sajes yy)

‘UONEDIO) J9JUSD VONNGINSIC JO} XB} |EIO) SEPNjDu! BJey 4

Aouad Ot Zp,

SWIAUR Ie BOURYD O} JOBIQNS gue Sale) asau |

JBIUOD VONNQUISIO WINIAY/BDNUSS JBWOISND INOA

JO SS@JPPR iN BU) 10) pz BBEC Bas Ja}UAaZD VONNQIISIG UWIM@Y/BD1AN8S

JBWOISND INOA WO 1UBIBjjID 8Q ABW) 1U@S BQ PINOUS SJADI0 INOA YdIUM

O} J8JUBD VONNQUISIC @U) 10) Op, @BeCd UO wey AQ G6uiddous.. 38S ALON.

BUD ul 9 00 09 £S il soz 8 86SW

( Gunnoyo "9 AB@MUOO) UO XP) YO)

Ouey as E8628 128 SOON _. coes sp SOrZ UID iy

iy Coy Ouse . ezecee O22 AM Ald SPSuey Olu s 00 08 $9 |i 19S 09S =60—NW

. — . es SOIZ JRLO ity aoe FF 00 99 PA] SO'Z 280 ity

coremmy =O LS OOis =p | ws IM SNQUEWO ul »P 00 $9 wy il Cer-Oer IW

SQUID u's oo 09 zp il SOZ ity AA, __ | SuARO— 9 sea~0D; LO xe) WUD)

Oru #9 08 o. S07 UID ky JASAPUEW\ HS 00 19 £P Ii soziv WW

omy AQ WARN ¥ SSID-OdvOdY I (Od¥Odv) 186 WMA aon ovo 2 SOIZ UO itv

SNQUIWOD : . ” 92z et et HS 0OS9 aw tl 4i2Si2 QW

eweny Hi MP coos hi Qr2-lzz ‘Sez WA IASARUEW S OOrg zp il SOZiv QW

SPue|s; AlID SBSUPRY oe 00 08 Ge SOIZ JOUIO Ilr

Ry _ em RO INOS SOZ wy _uiGuiA eueny 01 ' » 09S I LLL OOo)

SS 4 mms eT snQUIIO 0059 aw SOPZ UNO ity

ousy__ OTs coos 89 Ii SoZ iy in Bueny 9 0009S Ii peroet Ay

Ay SPSURy a ones 49 I! — XL ; 00 06 00 1 307 BAD We

aa — = oo wy _— AVDSSUPH =, 458 S 00 ¢r ze | 72 86S

! DOP TEAN I so oo 19 zP, SOIZ JOUIO IY

— s = A. — a AyD SPSURY oP 00 08 $9 |i SZS 91S-00S Vv!

( BURRO 'P JBMJOO} UO XB) LUD) )

RISAURWY a 00 9 zy ii SOI ity ty SNQUIWOD — oo S39 zp SO'rZ BWNO Iv

CONEY ° — . — 62? Bl 69r

eweny “Sere, 10 BoreTeD SHY) UF Jayear 88S OUeNd STATON IW Hl °sS 0019 =e il 99r-€9r NI

ieee” nag “a es on Ard Sesuey : 00 08 so. SOIZ UO Iv

RISADUEW\ ui '2 Oro. arti 961081 1 Wd ne = is zr i 6190097

ove 0 ooo 49 I SoZ iv¥ HO — “as oe sozmvy __0!

Rypsesuen OVW SY 0008 1 SOZIv yO OU8 tl»? Save) 10) Gopeied siy) ui yea BaC IH

. . 00'ss nt SOI UNO My OUR S@IEY VY SSEID 10) Yea Bas wens

qUTWD WAS oer = zy HO . — ; a SOIZ JOUIO Iv

OUD SBIRY y SSETD JO) YBa a5 SRUBUEW WAULION = dy euey § Olu» 00 08 LP | goro0e 2S wD

STEM O1'HL'S ooes 2p i SOZ7itv ON ; O71 wi 9 0029 os. SOIZ JPWAO ify

— "ows — ss SO7Y ON eUueny AUO WOW ¥ SSID OdVOdY II (OdvOdv)OVS 74

OISADURY\ , Or 2. SOZ UNO fy salSauouRy, 9 00 ¥9 2 | sOz7iv 90

SNQUINOD Ow» 0002 as. Li Evi-Ori saSayouew 0 00 re 2? il SOI ity 30

TSADUEY\ AUO WOR Y SSAOdvOdY |) (OdvOd'v) 860060 AN (01 28PUN Spy 204 Bunnoxo 20

Ayo SPSUBY ul ‘6 oo0e 9 Il soziy WN ae te

( Gun.poro 9 se@AOO) UO XB) WUD) . = ' | SOIZ JOWNO IIy

JASADUEW a ove zp ii sozivw 8 (N ~ mor a ¥ om 19

: 2 A. —_ \ ae. Ayrg sesuey O1 WL Xf 00 0€ 59 I! SZ7Itv OD

: eS oo'0e 9 |! SOIZ JOO Hy

oeu OTM ME 0S or seo v68 «AN : O1 HL 3S 00 08 $9 . SOT J@YIO IIy

hip sesuey Olu S 00 08 9 I SOT Wy 3N OUD NUO URW Y SSE OdVOdv |i (OdOdv) 996-296 yo

Aird SeSUBy , ' + $07 22UI0 ftv al ad oe i 4

ouey 0 oo0e 69 1) 665-965 P65 LW en 000849 sOZiN HV

, , , 00°08 SO | SO'Z 2OUNO ify Oust 0 Gomes SUI Ul aYRa 88S yy

Agsesuey = i. sep 00 € ze | ino «6OOW Rveny OTe oP 00 09 BP il SO'2 ty Ww

JaueD = (tp, 06d) 3 Jawad = (ip a6ed) .

B51) SaTeYy WHO Quad 3 apo) 1 BIG SOY wR QIId FB apo- ,

WIA xe) OSSD SOD N OZ j0 Vv Wey xe) DSSMD 80D N Or jC v

(EWES saes warned bun oO Subic 1 FEAAIBS Saec 480 }SO bund O subic i

seworsrr) ar win dys 7 € 1Sui4 S sewojsn” BES wry = -dys £ Sug

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.