From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1977 United States Supreme Court case
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Full case name Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, Chairman, Mississippi Tax Commission Citations 430 U.S. 274 (more Prior Certiorari Supreme Court of Mississippi , 330 So. 2d 268 (Miss. 1976).Subsequent Rehearing denied, 430 U.S. 976 (1977). A privilege tax, when used in conjunction with the "four-prong" test, does not discourage interstate commerce.
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Majority Blackmun, joined by unanimous U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady United States Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax .[ 1]
Complete Auto was a Michigan-based auto transporter involved in moving General Motors vehicles from the railhead at Jackson, Mississippi to dealerships in Mississippi . The vehicles were assembled outside Mississippi.
The Mississippi State Tax Commission levied a tax upon Complete Auto "for the privilege of engaging or continuing in business or doing business"[ 1] [ 2] sales tax "; however, it was a "transaction privilege" or gross receipts tax based on Complete Auto's gross receipts.
Complete Auto paid the taxes of $122,160.59 under protest, and then undertook a refund action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Complete Auto claimed that its transportation was but one part of an interstate movement, and that the taxes assessed and paid were unconstitutional as applied to operations in interstate commerce. The Chancery Court, in an unreported opinion, sustained the assessments.[ 2]
Complete Auto appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court unanimously affirmed and concluded:
It will be noted that Taxpayer has a large operation in this State. It is dependent upon the State for police protection and other State services the same as other citizens. It should pay its fair share of taxes so long, but only so long, as the tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and there is no danger of interstate commerce being smothered by cumulative taxes of several states. There is no possibility of any other state duplicating the tax involved in this case.[ 2]
Complete Auto argued against the constitutionality of tax, stating that they were part of an interstate operation , involved in transporting vehicles from the factories in Michigan to the dealers in Mississippi.[ 1]
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mississippi. The ruling established a four-prong test for constitutionality of a tax under the Commerce Clause:[ 3]
Substantial nexus - connection between a state and a potential taxpayer clear enough to impose a tax.[ 3] Nondiscrimination - interstate and intrastate taxes should not favor one over the other.[ 1] Fair apportionment - taxation of only the apportionment of activity that transpires within the taxing jurisdiction.[ 4] Fair relationship to services provided by the state - company enjoys services such as police protection while in a state.[ 1] Even though Complete Auto asserted that it was a part of an interstate operation, the Court agreed with Mississippi that while operating within the state, it was afforded services, such as police protection, provided for by taxation.
Subsequent developments [ edit ] The test enunciated in Complete Auto Transit received significant interpretation in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana ,[ 5]
^ a b c d e Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady , 430 U.S. 274 (1977). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document . ^ a b c "COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., Appellant, v. Charles R. BRADY, Jr., etc" . LII / Legal Information Institute . March 7, 1977. Retrieved May 12, 2020 .public domain .^ a b "Arizona Department of Revenue NEXUS UNIT" . Arizona Department of Revenue. Archived from the original on September 28, 2008. Retrieved October 1, 2008 .^ "Texas Franchise Tax Throwback Apportionment Provision Violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution" (PDF) . Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 16, 2011. Retrieved October 1, 2008 .^ Raabe, William A.; Whittenburg, Gerald E.; and Sanders, Debra L. Federal Tax Research. 8th ed. Florence, Ky.: Cengage Learning, 2008. ISBN 0-324-65965-2
Dormant Commerce Clause
Brown v. Maryland Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. Cooley v. Board of Wardens Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Swift & Co. v. United States George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. Edwards v. California Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Reeves, Inc. v. Stake Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke Maine v. Taylor Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy Granholm v. Heald United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Others
Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793 Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Stewart v. Abend Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Tasini Eldred v. Ashcroft MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick Golan v. Holder Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Allen v. Cooper Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Other copyright cases Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde United States v. General Electric Co. United States v. Univis Lens Co. Altvater v. Freeman Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Brulotte v. Thys Co. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. Graham v. John Deere Co. United States v. Adams Brenner v. Manson Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. Gottschalk v. Benson United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. Dann v. Johnston Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. Parker v. Flook Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diehr Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Dickinson v. Zurko Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Bilski v. Kappos Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Kappos v. Hyatt Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Gunn v. Minton Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Other trademark cases
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.