DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. BROHL

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
13-1032
Petitioner 
Direct Marketing Association
Respondent 
Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Colorado imposes a 2.9% tax on the sale of tangible goods in the state, which retailers with a physical presence in the state are required to collect from purchasers and remit to the state. If a Colorado purchaser has not paid the sales tax on tangible goods, as occurs in some online and mail-order transactions in which the businesses have no physical presence in Colorado, the purchaser must pay a 2.9% use tax and is responsible for reporting and paying the tax to the state. To increase the rate of collection of the use tax, in 2010, Colorado implemented regulations for non-collecting retailers whose gross sales in Colorado exceed $100,000. These retailers must provide transactional notices to Colorado purchasers, send annual purchase summaries to Colorado customers, and annually report Colorado purchaser information to the Colorado Department of Revenue. Retailers that do not comply with these regulations are subject to penalties.

In June 2010, Direct Marketing Association (DMA)—a group of businesses and organizations that market products via catalogs, advertisements, broadcast media, and the Internet—sued the Colorado Department of Revenue’s executive director and argued that the regulations violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. The district court granted DMA’s request for an injunction and later granted summary judgment in favor of DMA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit did not reach a decision on the merits of the appeal and instead held that the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin Colorado’s tax collection effort.

Question 

Does the Tax Injunction Act bar federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the enforcement of notice-and-reporting requirements of state tax law that neither impose nor require the collection of a tax?

Cite this Page
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. BROHL. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 November 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_1032>.
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. BROHL, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_1032 (last visited November 25, 2014).
"DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. BROHL," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed November 25, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_1032.