The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 49

[565] Eastern Air Transport, Inc. _v._ South Carolina Tax Comm'n., 285 U.S. 147, 153 (1932).

[566] Rast _v._ Van Deman and Lewis, 240 U.S. 342 (1916). _See also_ Tanner _v._ Little, 240 U.S. 369 (1916), and Pitney _v._ Washington, 240 U.S. 387 (1916) upholding a Washington statute imposing a prohibitive license tax upon merchants using trading stamps or coupons redeemable in merchandise.

[567] Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); Emert _v._ Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 (1895); Singer Sewing Machine Co. _v._ Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 (1914); Wagner _v._ City of Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919); Caskey Baking Co. _v._ Virginia, 313 U.S. 117 (1941).

[568] 197 U.S. 60 (1905). _See also_ Armour Packing Co. _v._ Lacy, 200 U.S. 226 (1906).

[569] 91 U.S. 275 (1876); _see also_ Ward _v._ Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871).

[570] _See_ Cook _v._ Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566 (1878); Guy _v._ Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434 (1880); Tiernan _v._ Rinker, 102 U.S. 123 (1880); Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); Webber _v._ Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 (1881); Walling _v._ Michigan, 116 U.S. 446 (1886); Darnell & Son Co. _v._ Memphis, 208 U.S. 113 (1908), where was held void a property tax on lumber which discriminated in favor of the local product: Bethlehem Motor Corp. _v._ Flynt, 256 U.S. 421 (1921), where a license tax on distributors was held to be invalidated by the provision made for a rebate under conditions that could be met only by manufacturers within the taxing State.

[571] Coe _v._ Errol, 116 U.S. 517 (1886).

[572] Ibid. 525.

[573] General Oil Co. _v._ Crain, 209 U.S. 211 (1908).

[574] American Steel & Wire Co. _v._ Speed, 192 U.S. 500 (1904); Bacon _v._ Illinois, 227 U.S. 504 (1913); Susquehanna Coal Co. _v._ South Amboy, 228 U.S. 665 (1913); Minnesota _v._ Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933); Independent Warehouses _v._ Scheele, 331 U.S. 70 (1947).

[575] Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933).

[576] Edelman _v._ Boeing Air Transport, Inc., 289 U.S. 249 (1933). The Court also upheld a tax on the sale of gasoline for use by an air transport line in conducting interstate transportation across the State in Eastern Air Transport, Inc. _v._ South Carolina Tax Comm., 285 U.S.

147 (1932).

[577] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167 (1939).

[578] Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 182 (1939).

[579] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167 (1939), as formulated in the headnotes; _see also_ Monamotor Oil Co. _v._ Johnson, 292 U.S. 86 (1934).

[580] Bingaman _v._ Golden Eagle Western Lines, 297 U.S. 626 (1936); McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 U.S. 176 (1940). In Helson _v._ Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245 (1929), the Court held that gasoline purchased in Illinois and used in an Illinois-Kentucky ferry could not be taxed by Kentucky, being, as it were, a part of the ferry, an instrument of commerce between the two States. _See also_ Kelley _v._ Rhoads, 188 U.S. 1 (1903); Champlain Realty Co. _v._ Brattleboro, 260 U.S. 366 (1922); Hughes Bros. Timber Co. _v._ Minnesota, 272 U.S. 469 (1926); Carson Petroleum Co. _v._ Vial, 279 U.S. 95 (1929).

[581] 120 U.S. 489 (1887).

[582] Corson _v._ Maryland, 120 U.S. 502 (1887); Asher _v._ Texas, 128 U.S. 129 (1888); Stoutenburgh _v._ Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); Brennan _v._ t.i.tusville, 153 U.S. 289 (1894); Stockard _v._ Morgan, 185 U.S. 27 (1902); Crenshaw _v._ Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389 (1913); Rogers _v._ Arkansas, 227 U.S. 401 (1913); Stewart _v._ Michigan, 232 U.S. 665 (1914); Western Oil Refining Co. _v._ Lips...o...b.. 244 U.S. 346 (1917); Cheney Bros. _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 246 U.S. 147 (1918).

[583] Caldwell _v._ North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622 (1903).

[584] Norfolk & W.R. Co. _v._ Sims, 191 U.S. 441 (1903).

[585] Rearick _v._ Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507 (1906); Dozier _v._ Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910); Davis _v._ Virginia, 236 U.S. 697 (1915).

[586] 203 U.S. at 512.

[587] Real Silk Hosiery Mills _v._ Portland, 268 U.S. 325 (1925).

[588] Heyman _v._ Hays, 236 U.S. 178 (1915). _See also_ Hump Hairpin Co.

_v._ Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290 (1922), holding that business done by a corporation through orders which were approved in a State where its tangible property and offices were located, but which were first taken by its salesmen in other States, was interstate, although the tax involved was sustained.

[589] Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U.S. 1, 21 (1892).

[590] New York ex rel. Hatch _v._ Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907); _Cf._ Nathan _v._ Louisiana, 8 How. 73 (1850).

[591] Ware _v._ Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908). _See also_ Brodnax _v._ Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 (1911).

[592] 222 U.S. 210 (1911).

[593] 233 U.S. 16 (1914).

[594] Ibid. 23. _See also_ Superior Oil _v._ Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 280 U.S. 390 (1930).

[595] Cha.s.saniol _v._ Greenwood, 291 U.S. 584 (1934).

[596] Wiloil Corp. _v._ Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169, 173 (1935); _see also_ Minnesota _v._ Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933).

[597] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).

[598] Best & Co. _v._ Maxwell. 311 U.S. 454, 455 (1940).

[599] 300 U.S. 577 (1937). _Cf._ Hinson _v._ Lott, 8 Wall. 148 (1869).

Here was involved a tax of fifty cents per gallon on all spiritous liquors brought into the State. Comparing the tax with a similar one imposed upon liquors manufactured in the State, the Court upheld the statute. "The taxes were complementary and were intended to effect equality."

[600] 300 U.S. at 583-584. Some subsequent use tax cases in the Henneford pattern are the following: Bacon & Sons _v._ Martin was decided in a unanimous _per curiam_ opinion. It involved a Kentucky statute which imposed a tax "on the 'receipt' of cosmetics in the State by any Kentucky retailer" equal to twenty per cent of the invoice price plus transportation cost, if any to the Kentucky dealer. The Kentucky court held that "the imposition of the tax against the retailer is not on the act of receiving the cosmetics, but on the sale and use thereof, after the retailer has received them." On this interpretation the Supreme Court sustained the tax. Obviously, other things being equal, there is little difference between a tax on receiving and a tax on possession a moment later. 305 U.S. 380 (1939). In Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62 (1939), a California use tax was upheld applicable to a nonresident corporation which solicited orders from California purchasers through agents for whom it hired offices in the State and took orders subject to the vendor's approval.

In Nelson _v._ Sears, Roebuck & Company and Nelson _v._ Montgomery Ward & Company, 312 U.S. 359 and 373 (1941) it was held that a foreign corporation which maintained retail stores in Iowa could be validly required to collect an Iowa use tax in respect of mail orders sent by Iowa purchasers to out-of-state branches of the corporation and filled by direct shipment by mail or common carrier from those branches to the purchasers. In General Trading Company _v._ State Tax Commission, 322 U.S. 335 (1944), also involving the Iowa tax, it was held that a company carrying on no operations in Iowa other than the solicitation of orders by traveling salesmen was liable for collection of the tax on goods sold to Iowa residents, even though the corporation was not licensed to do business in the State and the orders were forwarded for acceptance to Minnesota where they were filled by direct shipment to Iowa customers.

[601] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).

[602] Ibid. 53-54.

[603] Ibid. 57, citing Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U.S. 1 (1892); Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); and Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919). In the first it was held that the Robbins case did not apply to a firm of agents and brokers maintaining an office and samples throughout the year in the taxing district. The other two cases were totally irrelevant.

[604] 309 U.S. 70 and 430.

[605] Ibid. 414.

[606] 322 U.S. 327 (1944).

[607] Ibid. 330.

[608] Ibid. 332.

[609] 327 U.S. 416 (1946).

[610] Ibid. 417-418.

[611] Ibid. 435.

[612] Memphis Steam Laundry _v._ Stone, 342 U.S. 389 (1952).