Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether Washington's compensating use tax, applied to machinery and other chattels purchased outside the state and used in Washington, violated the Commerce Clause. The Court held that the tax was imposed on use after interstate commerce had ended and, because the statute allowed credits for comparable sales or use taxes paid elsewhere, did not discriminate against or burden interstate commerce. The Court reversed the injunction invalidating the statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Washington's two-percent compensating use tax on tangible personal property purchased at retail outside Washington and used in Washington was a tax on the operations of interstate commerce.
- Whether the use tax discriminated against or unlawfully burdened interstate commerce because it applied to out-of-state retail purchases while providing an offset for sales or use taxes previously paid elsewhere.
- Whether the tax was invalid because its structure or legislative motives made it, in substance, a tax on the out-of-state sale or a protective tariff.
Holdings
- A nondiscriminatory tax on the privilege of using property in Washington after interstate transportation has ended is not a tax on the operations of interstate commerce.
- The Washington use tax did not unlawfully discriminate against or burden interstate commerce because its credit for sales or use taxes paid in another state equalized the tax burden between property purchased in Washington and property purchased elsewhere.
- The use tax was not converted into an unconstitutional tax on an out-of-state sale or protective tariff merely because it applied only to property acquired through a prior retail purchase or because protection of local retailers may have motivated its enactment.
Key quotations
“The tax is not upon the operations of interstate commerce but upon the privilege of use after commerce is at an end.” (582)
“When the account is made up, the stranger from afar is subject to no greater burdens as a consequence of ownership than the dweller within the gates.” (584)
“A legislature has a wide range of choice in classifying and limiting the subjects of taxation.” (588)
Factual background
Plaintiffs, contractors and subcontractors working on the Grand Coulee Dam, brought machinery, materials, and supplies into Washington after purchasing them at retail in other states. The property, including locomotives, cars, conveyors, pumps, and trestle steel, had a total cost of $921,189.34 including transportation. Washington imposed a two-percent compensating use tax totaling $18,423.78, and plaintiffs challenged the tax under the Commerce Clause.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs challenged Washington's use tax as applied to machinery, materials, and supplies purchased in other states and brought into Washington for use in constructing the Grand Coulee Dam. A three-judge district court declared the statute void on its face and granted an interlocutory injunction, with one judge dissenting. The Supreme Court reviewed the judgment by appeal and reversed.