Florida Department of Revenue v. American Business USA Corp., 191 So. 3d 906

American Business USA Corp. (d/b/a 1Vende.com) is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Wellington, FL that solicited and accepted orders online for flowers, gift baskets, and other tangible personal property.
American Business did not keep inventory; it routed orders to local florists (including out-of-state florists) to fulfill deliveries.
The Department of Revenue assessed sales tax and interest under §212.05(1)(l), which states Florida florists are liable for sales tax on retail sales regardless of where or by whom items are delivered.
American Business collected sales tax on in-Florida deliveries but not on orders delivered out of state; it protested the assessment and lost administratively and before the Fourth District.
The Fourth District held the tax was unconstitutional as applied to out-of-state deliveries under the dormant Commerce Clause (but found no Due Process violation).
The Florida Supreme Court granted review because the district court declared a state statute invalid and ultimately quashed the Fourth District, upholding §212.05(1)(l) as constitutional as applied to American Business.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §212.05(1)(l) as applied to orders accepted in Florida but delivered out-of-state violates the dormant Commerce Clause	Taxation of out-of-state deliveries burdens interstate commerce and lacks "substantial nexus;" mere registration is insufficient	Florida taxes the sales transaction that occurs in Florida (accepting orders, receiving payment, arranging fulfillment); American Business has physical presence and substantial nexus	Rejected plaintiff; all four Complete Auto prongs satisfied — tax does not violate dormant Commerce Clause
Whether the tax violates the Due Process Clause	Taxing out-of-state deliveries exceeds the State's power and offends due process	American Business has minimum contacts and physical presence in Florida (registered, principal place of business)	Rejected plaintiff; minimum contacts/substantial nexus present, so no due process violation

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (framework for four-part dormant Commerce Clause test)
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (distinguishing Due Process and Commerce Clause nexus; physical presence rule for Commerce Clause era)
National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (mail-order sellers lacking physical presence cannot be taxed)
National Geographic Society v. California Board of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551 (reaffirming Bellas Hess distinction)
Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (refinements to Complete Auto: internal/external consistency, apportionment)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (balancing test for incidental burdens on interstate commerce)
Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (noting state benefits justify taxation; discussed in relation to fair relation prong)
Comptroller of the Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, 135 S. Ct. 1787 (internal consistency analysis for apportionment concerns)