commerce clause

Subscribe to commerce clause via RSS

The Texas Supreme Court upheld the imposition of the franchise tax (often referred to as the Texas Margins Tax) under both the Texas and United States Constitutions. In Re Nestle USA, Inc., No. 12-0518 (Tex. 2012) (opinion delivered Oct. 19, 2012).

Nestle argued that the imposition of the franchise tax was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied.  In Texas, the franchise tax rate is 1%, except for those taxpayers “primarily engaged in a wholesale or retail trade,” for whom the rate is 0.5%. Nestle was engaged only in wholesale and retailing activities in Texas, but because it was engaged in manufacturing outside of Texas, it was subject to the 1% franchise tax rate rather than the lower wholesale/retail rate. Specifically, Nestle argued that the differential rate based on the wholesale/retail classification was unconstitutional under the Equal and Uniform Clause of the Texas Constitution and the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution because the tax lacked a reasonable relationship with actual business in Texas and because of the fact that the tax is higher for those with a manufacturing business outside of Texas.Continue Reading That’s the Way the Cookie Crumbles: Nestle Loses Its Battle on the Constitutionality of the Texas Franchise Tax

More than a decade into the case, AT&T’s challenge to the constitutionality of Mississippi’s dividends received deduction is over. On September 6, the Mississippi Supreme Court invalidated on procedural grounds the trial court’s 2006 decision finding that the dividends received deduction was unconstitutional. Mississippi’s dividends received deduction is limited to dividends paid from subsidiaries doing…

Alabama ALJ Bill Thompson voided a local sales tax assessment asserted against an electronics retailer because the retailer did not have a physical presence in the taxing jurisdictions. Although the retailer sent repairmen into the local taxing jurisdictions, the retailer did not have a physical store or sales representatives in the localities, and therefore lacked…

Maryland is known for crabcakes, a beautiful capital city, a mediocre baseball team, a great law school (Jeff Friedman snuck this edit in), and, now, unconstitutional tax laws. A taxpayer won a constitutional challenge to the Maryland personal income tax, which prohibited a credit against the local income tax for taxes paid to other jurisdictions. Brian Wynne v. Md. State Comptroller, Case No. 13-C-10-80987 (June 20, 2011).

Maryland, like most states, permits resident taxpayers a credit for taxes paid to other jurisdictions to offset the state’s personal income tax. Md. Code Ann. § 10-703(a). The Maryland statute, however, only provided a credit against the state income tax and did not provide a credit against county income taxes. The Howard County Circuit Court, reversing the Maryland Tax Court, held that a Maryland statute violated the Commerce Clause because it did not permit the taxpayer to take a credit against the Baltimore portion of the personal income tax for taxes paid to other jurisdictions.Continue Reading A Wynne-Win Situation in Maryland

In an unusual twist of legislative procedure, the Alabama legislature passed a joint resolution (SJR 4) vetoing an Alabama Department of Revenue (Department) regulation that disallowed a Business Privilege Tax (BPT) deduction for equity investments in subsidiaries. 

The saga of SJR 4 relates to AT&T Corp. v. Surtees, 953 So. 2d 1240 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). In AT&T, the Alabama Court of Appeals held that the BPT deduction for investments in subsidiaries found in Ala. Code § 40-14A-23(g)(1) was facially unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, because the deduction was limited to only those subsidiaries doing business in Alabama. The court did not order the deduction to be stricken, but rather remanded the case to the trial court to afford the Department an opportunity to offer a permissible justification for the discrimination. The parties ultimately settled before the court entered judgment on the remedy issue.Continue Reading Just Say No: Alabama Legislature Vetoes Department of Revenue’s BPT Regulation

On January 26, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Direct Marketing Association’s (DMA) motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the Colorado Department of Revenue (Department) from enforcing its sales tax notice and reporting regime enacted in 2010 and set to become effective January 31, 2011. The Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Roxy Huber, Civil Case No. 10-cv-01546-REB-CBS, Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2011). The DMA’s amended complaint, which provided the basis for the injunction, alleged constitutional violations under the Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right to free speech of businesses and consumers, the right to privacy of Colorado residents, and the deprivation of the value of proprietary customer lists without due process or fair compensation. The preliminary injunction was premised only on the Commerce Clause claims and left open the consideration of the other claims in the amended complaint.

The court concluded that the DMA had demonstrated the four requirements to be granted a preliminary injunction: 

  1. The plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 
  2. The plaintiff has an irreparable injury; 
  3. The injury to the plaintiff outweighs the injury to the defendant; and 
  4. The preliminary injunction is in the best interests of the public.

Continue Reading Oh No You Didn’t! Colorado Enjoined From Enforcing Reporting Requirements

The Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Department of Revenue issued interesting opinions that continue to expand corporate income tax nexus arguably beyond the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Iowa Supreme Court held that physical presence is not a required ingredient of the secret recipe for substantial nexus in the corporate income tax context. KFC Corp. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, No. 09-1032 (Iowa Dec. 30, 2010). The Department issued a corporate income tax assessment to KFC Corp., which had no employees or property in Iowa. KFC’s only connection with Iowa was that it licensed the KFC intangible property to independent franchisees operating or conducting business in Iowa. The Iowa Supreme Court held that, despite this tenuous connection and no physical presence, KFC had substantial nexus in Iowa.Continue Reading Iowa Supreme Court Deep-Fries Commerce Clause