Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady

Argued January 19, 1977
Decided March 7, 1977
Full case name Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, Chairman, Mississippi Tax Commission
Citations

430 U.S. 274 (more)

Prior history Certiorari from the Supreme Court of Mississippi
Holding
A privilege tax, when used in conjunction with the "four-prong" test, does not discourage interstate commerce.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Blackmun, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Interstate Commerce Clause

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax.

Background

Complete Auto was an auto transporter involved in moving General Motors vehicles from the railhead at Jackson, Mississippi to dealerships in 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] in the state of Mississippi. The Court refers to the tax as a "sales tax"; however, it was a "transaction privilege" or gross receipts tax based on Complete Auto's gross receipts.

Arguments

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.[2] According to Complete Auto, taxation on interstate operations not only discourages interstate commerce but also is a violation of the Commerce Clause.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mississippi. The ruling issued that Complete Auto established a "four-prong" test for constitutionality of a tax under the Commerce Clause:[3]

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

The test enunciated in Complete Auto Transit received significant interpretation in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981).[5]

References

  1. 1 2 3 "COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC. v. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)". FindLaw. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  2. "Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)". Justia. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  3. 1 2 "Arizona Department of Revenue NEXUS UNIT". Arizona Department of Revenue. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  4. "Texas Franchise Tax Throwback Apportionment Provision Violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution" (PDF). Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  5. 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

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, February 03, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.