Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 83-297.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-297.,83-297. |
| Parties | ARMCO INC. v. David C. HARDESTY, Jr., State Tax Commissioner of West Virginia. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Richard R. Dailey argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Edward H. Hein and Michael J. Rufkahr.
Robert Digges, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of West Virginia, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Chauncey H. Browning, Attorney General, and Jack C. McClung, Deputy Attorney General.*
* Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Washington by Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and Leland T. Johnson and Timothy R. Malone, Assistant Attorneys General; and for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Lawrence R. Velvel, Elaine D. Kaplan, and Stefan F. Tucker.
In this appeal an Ohio corporation claims that West Virginia's wholesale gross receipts tax, from which local manufacturers are exempt, unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce. We agree and reverse the state court's judgment upholding the tax.
Appellant Armco Inc. is an Ohio corporation qualified to do business in West Virginia. Its primary business is manufacturing and selling steel products. From 1970 through 1975, the time at issue here, Armco conducted business in West Virginia through five divisions or subdivisions. Two of these had facilities and employees in the State, while the other three sold various products to customers in the State only through franchisees or nonresident traveling salesmen.1
West Virginia imposes a gross receipts tax on persons engaged in the business of selling tangible property at wholesale. W.Va.Code § 11–13–2c (1983).2 For the years 1970 through 1975 Armco took the position that the gross receipts tax could not be imposed on the sales it made through franchisees and nonresident salesmen. In addition, because local manufacturers were exempt from the tax, see § 11–13–2,3 Armco argued that the tax discriminated against interstate commerce. After a hearing, the State Tax Commissioner, who is appellee here, determined that the tax was properly assessed on the sales at issue, and that Armco had not shown the tax was discriminatory.4 The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reversed, holding that the nexus between the sales and the State was insufficient to support imposition of the tax.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court and upheld the tax. 303 S.E.2d 706 (1983). Viewing all of Armco's activities in the State as a "unitary business," the court held that the taxpayer had a substantial nexus with the State and that the taxpayer's total tax was fairly related to the services and benefits provided to Armco by the State. Id., 303 S.E.2d, at 714, 716. It also held that the tax did not discriminate against interstate commerce; while local manufacturers making sales in the State were exempt from the gross receipts tax, they paid a much higher manufacturing tax.5 Id., 303 S.E.2d, at 716–717.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 464 U.S. 1016, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983), and now reverse. Since we hold that West Virginia's tax does discriminate unconstitutionally against interstate commerce, we do not reach Armco's argument that there was not a sufficient nexus between the State and the sales at issue here to permit taxation of them.
It long has been established that the Commerce Clause of its own force protects free trade among the States. Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U.S. 318, 328, 97 S.Ct. 599, 606, 50 L.Ed.2d 514 (1977) ; Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 252, 67 S.Ct. 274, 276, 91 L.Ed. 265 (1946). One aspect of this protection is that a State "may not discriminate between transactions on the basis of some interstate element." Boston Stock Exchange, supra, 429 U.S., at 332, n. 12, 97 S.Ct., at 608, n. 12. That is, a State may not tax a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State.
On its face, the gross receipts tax at issue here appears to have just this effect. The tax provides that two companies selling tangible property at wholesale in West Virginia will be treated differently depending on whether the taxpayer conducts manufacturing in the State or out of it. Thus, if the property was manufactured in the State, no tax on the sale is imposed. If the property was manufactured out of the State and imported for sale, a tax of 0.27% is imposed on the sale price. See General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 459, 84 S.Ct. 1564, 1577, 12 L.Ed.2d 430 (1964) (Goldberg, J., dissenting) (); Columbia Steel Co. v. State, 30 Wash.2d 658, 664, 192 P.2d 976, 979 (1948) (invalidating Washington tax).
The court below was of the view that no such discrimination in favor of local, intrastate commerce occurred because taxpayers manufacturing in the State were subject to a far higher tax of 0.88% of the sale price. This view is mistaken. The gross sales tax imposed on Armco cannot be deemed a "compensating tax" for the manufacturing tax imposed on its West Virginia competitors. In Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 758–759, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 2135, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981), the Court refused to consider a tax on the first use in Louisiana of gas brought in from out of State to be a complement of a severance tax in the same amount imposed on gas produced in the State. Severance and first use or processing were not "substantially equivalent event [[[s]" on which compensating taxes might be imposed. Id., at 759, 101 S.Ct., at 2135. Here, too, manufacturing and wholesaling are not "substantially equivalent events" such that the heavy tax on in-state manufacturers can be said to compensate for the admittedly lighter burden placed on wholesalers from out of State. Manufacturing frequently entails selling in the State, but we cannot say which portion of the manufacturing tax is attributable to manufacturing, and which portion to sales.6 The fact that the manufacturing tax is not reduced when a West Virginia manufacturer sells its goods out of State, and that it is reduced when part of the manufacturing takes place out of State, makes clear that the manufacturing tax is just that, and not in part a proxy for the gross receipts tax imposed on Armco and other sellers from other States.7
Moreover, when the two taxes are considered together, discrimination against interstate commerce persists. If Ohio or any of the other 48 States imposes a like tax on its manufacturers—which they have every right to do—then Armco and others from out of State will pay both a manufacturing tax and a wholesale tax while sellers resident in West Virginia will pay only the manufacturing tax. For example, if Ohio were to adopt the precise scheme here, then an interstate seller would pay the manufacturing tax of 0.88% and the gross receipts tax of 0.27%; a purely intrastate seller would pay only the manufacturing tax of 0.88% and would be exempt from the gross receipts tax.
Appellee suggests that we should require Armco to prove actual discriminatory impact on it by pointing to a State that imposes a manufacturing tax that results in a total burden higher than that imposed on Armco's competitors in West Virginia. This is not the test. In Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159, 169, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 2942, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983), the Court noted that a tax must have "what might be called internal consistency—that is the [tax] must be such that, if applied by every jurisdiction," there would be no impermissible interference with free trade. In that case, the Court was discussing the requirement that a tax be fairly apportioned to reflect the business conducted in the State. A similar rule applies where the allegation is that a tax on its face discriminates against interstate commerce. A tax that unfairly apportions income from other States is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce. See also id., at 170–171, 103 S.Ct., at 2948. Any other rule would mean that the constitutionality of West Virginia's tax laws would depend on the shifting complexities of the tax codes of 49 other States, and that the validity of the taxes imposed on each taxpayer would depend on the particular other States in which it operated.8
It is true, as the State of Washington appearing as amicus curiae points out, that Armco would be faced with the same situation that it complains of here if Ohio (or some other State) imposed a tax only upon manufacturing, while West Virginia imposed a tax only upon wholesaling. In that situation, Armco would bear two taxes, while West Virginia sellers would bear only one. But such a result would not arise from impermissible discrimination against interstate commerce but from fair encouragement of in-state business. What we said in Boston Stock Exchange, 429 U.S., at 336–337, 97 S.Ct., at 610, is relevant here as well:
The judgment below is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Court today strikes down West Virginia's wholesale gross receipts tax, finding that the wholesale tax unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce, because local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armco Inc v. Hardesty
...467 U.S. 638 ... 104 S.Ct. 2620 ... 81 L.Ed.2d 540 ... ARMCO INC ... David C. HARDESTY, Jr., State Tax Commissioner of West Virginia ... No. 83-297 ... Supreme Court of the United States ... Argued April 17, 1984 ... Decided June 12, 1984 ... Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1984 ... West Virginia imposes a gross receipts tax on businesses selling tangible property at ... ...