Department of Treasury of Ind. v. International Harvester Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | 27767. |
| Citation | 47 N.E.2d 150,221 Ind. 416 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF INDIANA et al. v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., David I. Day, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen and Byron B. Emswiller, of Indianapolis, for appellants.
Edward R. Lewis, of Chicago, Ill., and Warrack Wallace, Paul N Rowe, and Baker, Daniels, Wallace & Seagle, all of Indianapolis, for appellees.
The appellees sued to recover gross income taxes paid to the State of Indiana during the years 1935 and 1936. It was stipulated at the trial that judgment for any amount found due should be in favor of the appellee International Harvester Company, and that, for the purposes of the case the appellees should be considered as one party.
The evidence disclosed, without conflict, that the appellees were corporations organized under the laws of other states but authorized to do business in Indiana. They were engaged in the manufacture of farm implements and in the sale of their products both at wholesale and retail. Manufacturing establishments were maintained at Richmond and Fort Wayne, and selling branches at Indianapolis, Terre Haute, Fort Wayne, and Evansville in this state. There were also mumerous manufacturing plants and sales branches in adjoining states and elsewhere. Each branch served assigned territory and in several instances parts of Indiana were within the exclusive jurisdiction of branch offices located without the state.
The trial court determined the tax liability of the appellees under four factual situations, designated as Classes A, C, D and E. The nature of these transactions may be stated as follows:
Class A: Sales by branches located outside Indiana to dealers and users located in Indiana. These sales were made on orders solicited in Indiana by representatives of out-of-state branches, or upon mail orders sent from Indiana to out-of-state branches. The orders were accepted by the outside state branch offices and the purchase money paid to them. Without directions from the purchasers, the goods were shipped to them in Indiana from branches, warehouses, or factories located outside Indiana.
Class C: Sales by branches located outside Indiana to dealers and users residing in Indiana. The orders were solicited in Indiana and the customers took delivery to themselves at the factories in Indiana to save time and expense of shipping.
Class D: Sales by branches located in Indiana to dealers and users residing out side of Indiana, in which the customers came to Indiana and accepted delivery to themselves in this state.
Class E: Sales by branches located in Indiana to dealers and users residing in Indiana, in which the goods were shipped from points outside Indiana to customers in Indiana, pursuant to contracts so providing.
The court below found that the appellees were entitled to a refund of taxes paid upon A, C, and D transactions, but not for those under Class E. By properly assigned errors and cross-errors each of these findings is challenged.
Much of the briefs were devoted to the subject of the interstate attributes of the transactions. We consider these discussions beside the issues. Interstate commerce merce is not to be exempted from this tax unless it is imposed in such a manner as to lead to the possibility of double or multiple burdens. The Supreme Court of the United States held in J. D Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 1938, 304 U.S. 307, 58 S.Ct. 913, 916, 82 L.Ed. 1365, 117 A.L.R. 429, that this tax could not be imposed upon a domestic corporation with its principal office and place of business in this state, for gross income derived from the sale of its products to customers in other states. The court said that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial