i might be wrong, but my argument is not absurd.
i don't know us federal/state tax law but i assume it is much like federal tax law in canada and really this is kind of a conflict of laws question anyway.
first off, remember the basis of jurisdiction to tax the sale of goods does not have to be the seller being physically domiciled in the state. sales tax is levied on the buyer, not the seller. as a matter of convenience, the seller is dragooned into collecting and remitting the tax for the state by legislation, but the buyer is the one paying it and the buyer's domicile is the key.
so if the goods are delivered in florida to a florida resident, then florida can choose to levy sales tax on the buyer, regardless of where the company that sells them is based. the fact title to the goods is taken in florida would be sufficient for florida to tax them. what they can't do is force a company outside the state to collect the tax for them.
but, if buyers evade the law by failing to voluntarily pay their taxes, then the state of florida can conduct an investigation and can bring charges and they can subpoena the records of sellers to prove that buyers are evading the law. generally speaking courts in another jurisdiction will assist a state investigating criminal activity by giving effect to a subpoena or letters rogatory or some other form of compulsion.
so if you are a florida prosecuter and you go to wisconsin with a florida subpoena and say to a wisconsin court "people in florida are evading the law and a company residing in wisconsin has the records which will prove it" there is a chance a wisconsin court will assist by issuing a subpoena.
florida can also go further and actually take jurisdiction over the seller and require the seller to collect and remit sales tax if they can find any basis for taking jurisdiction over the seller that would allow them to say they are domiciled in the state. That includes any kind of business operation in the state by the seller. that is why i brought up amazon as an example. they are stuck collecting sales tax for any state where they have offices regardless of whether the goods in a particular transaction are actually delivered from a warehouse in a different state.
incidentally, i would have thought of you as readily grasping this as a member of the bar of the great state of texas which has done more than anyone else to successfully extended the concept of state jurisdiction over subject matter outside that state based on a very tenuous notion of concepts like domicile. your plaintiff's bar association colleagues have done much to facilitate the bringing of big fat jury claims in texas courts on matters with a very tenuous connection to texas
