Mind letting us know what you are talking about? News? Link?
Note: This only affects consumers in the United States.It's news. As for the links, I haven't had the time to read
the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion yet, but here is
a summary by Adam Liptak of the New York Times.
The Court, in an extremely unusual ruling, today directly invalidated a previous Constitutional doctrine based on opinions in earlier litigation that allowed retail outlets to avoid collecting a state's sales tax* unless they had a "physical presence" in the state.
Today's Supreme Court decision eliminates that restriction. The states are now free to enact statutes that would require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases by their residents as long as those laws don't overly burden interstate commerce.
There are a number of potential complications involved in implementing this federal court ruling and, no doubt, they will spawn additional lawsuits.
But the bottom line is that if you are a resident of another state, and you're accustomed to avoiding sales taxes by purchasing from online New York retail outlets like B&H and Adorama, your supplier may in the future be required to collect your state's sales tax on your Internet purchases.
In other words, it may be time to consider accelerating your order for
that $48K Hassy. You know you want it! (I'm not certain whether the previous link will work outside North America).
___
* International note: we have an unusual system of taxing retail sales in the United States. No national VAT or GST. The states control this particular class of taxes. (For those of you in Europe, the individual states here exercise independent authority over retail sales taxation roughly analogous to that of the EU national governments—except that here each state has complete discretion to determine its own sales tax rate, or impose none at all.)