419 U.S. 560 (1975), 73-1697, Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Department of Revenue
|Docket Nº:||No. 73-1697|
|Citation:||419 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 706, 42 L.Ed.2d 719|
|Party Name:||Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Department of Revenue|
|Case Date:||January 22, 1975|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued December 16, 1974
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON
Appellant manufacturer, with a home office and manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania and another plant in California, challenges the constitutionality of Washington State's business and occupation tax which was levied on the unapportioned gross receipts of appellant resulting from its sale of aerospace fasteners to Boeing, its principal Washington customer. Appellant's one Washington-based employee, an engineer, whose office was in his home but who took no fastener orders from Boeing, primarily consulted with Boeing regarding its anticipated fastener needs and followed up any difficulties in the use of fasteners after delivery. The state taxing authorities found that appellant's business activities in Washington were sufficient to sustain the tax, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. Held: Washington's business and occupation tax on appellant is constitutional. Pp. 562-564.
(a) There is no violation of due process as the measure of the tax bears a relationship to the benefits conferred on appellant by the State. P. 562.
(b) The tax is not repugnant to the Commerce Clause, appellant having made no showing of multiple taxation on its interstate business, the tax being apportioned to the activities taxed, all of which are intrastate. General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436. Pp. 562-564.
DOUGLAS, J., wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.
BURGER, J., lead opinion
[95 S.Ct. 708] Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, announced by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER.
Appellant, a manufacturer of industrial and aerospace fasteners (nuts and bolts generally), has its home office in Pennsylvania, one manufacturing plant there, and another in California. Its principal customer in the State of Washington is the Boeing Company, in Seattle. In the years relevant here, it had one employee, one Martinson, in Washington, who was paid a salary and who operated out of his home near Seattle. He was an engineer whose primary duty was to consult with Boeing regarding its anticipated needs and requirements for aerospace fasteners and to follow up any difficulties in the use of appellant's product after...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP