Henneford v. Silas Mason Co, No. 418

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCARDOZO
Citation300 U.S. 577,81 L.Ed. 814,57 S.Ct. 524
PartiesHENNEFORD et al. v. SILAS MASON CO., Inc. Et al. Re
Decision Date29 March 1937
Docket NumberNo. 418

300 U.S. 577
57 S.Ct. 524
81 L.Ed. 814
HENNEFORD et al.

v.

SILAS MASON CO., Inc. Et al.

No. 418.
Reargued March 1, 2, 1937.
Decided March 29, 1937.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Washington.

Page 578

Mr. R. G. Sharpe, of Olympia, Wash., for appellants.

Mr. B. H. Kizer, of Spokane, Wash., for appellees.

Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

A statute of Washington taxing the use of chattels in that state is assailed in this suit as a violation of the commerce clause (Constitution of the United States, art. 1, § 8) in so far as the tax is applicable to chattels purchased in another state and used in Washington thereafter.

Page 579

Plaintiffs (appellees in this court) are engaged either as contractors or as subcontractors in the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia river. In the performance of that work they have brought into the state of Washington machinery, materials, and supplies, such as locomotives, cars, conveyors, pumps, and trestle steel, which were bought at retail in other states. The cost of all the articles with transportation expenses added was $921,189.34. Defendants, the Tax Commission of Washington (appellants in this court) gave notice that plaintiffs had become subject through the use of this property to a tax of $18,423.78, 2 per cent. of the cost, and made demand for payment. A District Court of three judges, organized in accordance with section 266 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380)), adjudged the statute void upon its face, and granted an interlocutory injunction, one judge dissenting. 15 F.Supp. 958. The case is here upon appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380).

Chapter 180, page 706 of the Laws of Washington for the year 1935, consisting of twenty titles, lays a multitude of excise taxes on occupations and activities. Only two of these taxes are important for the purposes of the case at hand, the 'tax on retail sales,' imposed by title 3, and the 'compensating tax,' imposed by title 4 on the privilege of use. Title 3 provides that after May 1, 1935, every retail sale in Washington, with a few enumerated exceptions, 1 shall be subject to a tax of 2 per cent. of

Page 580

the selling price. Title 4, with the heading 'compensating tax,' provides (sections 31, 35) that there shall be collected from every person in the state 'a tax or excise for the privilege of using within this state any article of tangible personal property purchased subsequent to April 30, 1935,' at the rate of 2 per cent. of the purchase price, including in such price the cost of transportation from the place where the article was purchased. If those provisions stood alone, they would mean that retail buyers within the state would have to pay a double tax, 2 per cent. upon the sale and 2 per cent. upon the use. Relief from such a burden is provided in another section (section 32) which qualifies the use tax by allowing four exceptions. Only two of these exceptions (b and c) call for mention at this time.2 Subdivision (b) provides that the use tax shall not be laid unless the property has been bought at retail. Subdivision (c) provides that the tax shall nto

Page 581

apply to the 'use of any article of tangible personal property the sale or use of which has already been subjected to a tax equal to or in excess of that imposed by this title whether under the laws of this state or of some other state of the United States.' If the rate of such other tax is less than 2 per cent., the exemption is not to be complete (section 33), but in such circumstances the rate is to be measured by the difference.

The plan embodied in these provisions is neither hidden nor uncertain. A use tax is never payable where the user has acquired property by retail purchase in the state of Washington, except in the rare instances in which retail purchases in Washington are not subjected to a sales tax. On the other hand, a use tax is always payable where the user has acquired property by retail purchase in or from another state, unless he had paid a sales or use tax elsewhere before bringing it to Washington. The tax presupposes everywhere a retail purchase by the user before the time of use. If he has manufactured the chattel for himself, or has received it from the manufacturer as a legacy or gift, he is exempt from the use tax, whether title was acquired in Washington or elsewhere. The practical effect of a system thus conditioned is readily perceived. One of its effects must be that retail sellers in Washington will be helped to compete upon terms of equality with retail dealers in other states who are exempt from a sales tax or any corresponding burden. Another effect, or at least another tendency, must be to avoid the likelihood of a drain upon the revenues of the state, buyers being no longer tempted to place their orders in other states in the effort to escape payment of the tax on local sales. Do these consequences which must have been foreseen, necessitate a holding that the tax upon the use is either a tax upon the operations of interstate commerce or a discrimination against such commerce obstructing or burdening it unlawfully?

Page 582

1. The tax is not upon the operations of interstate commerce, but upon the privilege of use after commerce is at an end.

Things acquired or transported in interstate commerce may be subjected to a property tax, nondiscriminatory in its operation, when they have become part of the common mass of property within the state of destination. Wiloil Corp. v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169, 175, 55 S.Ct. 358, 360, 79 L.Ed 838; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota, 246 U.S. 450, 453, 38 S.Ct. 373, 62 L.Ed. 827; Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 563, 575, 30 S.Ct. 578, 54 L.Ed 883; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500, 519, 24 S.Ct. 365, 48 L.Ed. 538; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 137, 19 L.Ed. 382. This is so, indeed, though they are still in the original packages. Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 43 S.Ct. 643, 67 L.Ed. 1095; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, supra; Woodruff v. Parham, supra. For like reasons they may be subjected, when once they are at rest, to a nondiscriminatory tax upon use or enjoyment. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267, 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 77 L.Ed. 730, 87 A.L.R. 1191; Edelman v. Boeing Air Transport, Inc., 289 U.S. 249, 252, 53 S.Ct. 591, 592, 77 L.Ed. 1155; Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 292 U.S. 86, 93, 54 S.Ct. 575, 578, 78 L.Ed. 1141. The privilege of use is only one attribute, among many, of the bundle of privileges that make up property or ownership. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, supra; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136—138, 50 S.Ct. 46, 48, 74 L.Ed. 226; Burnet v. Wells, 289 U.S. 670, 678, 53 S.Ct. 761, 764, 77 L.Ed. 1439. A state is at liberty, if it pleases, to tax them all collectively, or to separate the faggots and lay the charge distributively. Id. Calling the tax an excise when it is laid solely upon the use (Vancouver Oil Co. v. Henneford, 183 Wash. 317, 49 P.(2d) 14) does not make the power to impose it less, for anything the commerce clause has to say of its validity, than calling it a property tax and laying it on ownership. 'A nondiscriminatory tax upon local sales * * * has never been regarded as imposing a direct burden upon interstate commerce and has no greater or different effect upon that commerce than a general property tax to which all those enjoying the protection of the

Page 583

state may be subjected.' Eastern Air Transport, Inc., v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 285 U.S. 147, 153, 52 S.Ct. 340, 341, 76 L.Ed. 673. A tax upon the privilege of use or storage when the chattel used or stored has ceased to be in transit is now an impost so common that its validity has been withdrawn from the arena of debate. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, supra; Edelman v. Boeing Air Transport, Inc., supra; Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, supra. Cf. Vancouver Oil Co. v. Henneford, supra.

The case before us does not call for approval or disapproval of the definition of use or enjoyment in the rules of the Commission. Those rules inform us that 'property is put to use...

To continue reading

Request your trial
342 practice notes
  • United States v. Livingston, Civ. A. No. AC-174.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 18, 1959
    ...as distinguished from a tax on the property itself, has long been a commonplace in this country. See Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 582-583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 526-527, 81 L.Ed. 814." 355 U.S. 466, 78 S.Ct. Obviously, the federal government may not impose federal taxes by contract, ......
  • U.S. v. Moore, No. 78-1594
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 2, 1980
    ...answer, may not demonstrate that there was no wilful intent to swear falsely. We have here no such case. Id. at 576, 57 S.Ct. at 540, 81 L.Ed. at 814. 73 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d) 74 United States v. Moore, supra note 24, at 1268, App. 27. 75 Id. at 1267-1268, App. 25-26. 76 Id. at 1267-1268, App......
  • Goldrick v. Coal Mining Co, BERWIND-WHITE
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...as applied to respondent is without the possibility of such consequences. Equality is its theme, Page 49 cf. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 527, 81 L.Ed. 814. It does not aim at or discriminate against interstate commerce. It is laid upon every purchaser, wit......
  • Shell Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 6, 1966
    ...(Eastern Air Transport, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm., supra, 285 U.S. 147, 153, 52 S.Ct. 340, 341; Henneford v. Silas Mason Co. (1937) 300 U.S. 577, 582--583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 81 L.Ed. 814), 'notwithstanding that (the) ultimate function (of the fuel) is to generate motive power for carryin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
340 cases
  • United States v. Livingston, Civ. A. No. AC-174.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 18, 1959
    ...as distinguished from a tax on the property itself, has long been a commonplace in this country. See Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 582-583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 526-527, 81 L.Ed. 814." 355 U.S. 466, 78 S.Ct. Obviously, the federal government may not impose federal taxes by contract, ......
  • U.S. v. Moore, No. 78-1594
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 2, 1980
    ...answer, may not demonstrate that there was no wilful intent to swear falsely. We have here no such case. Id. at 576, 57 S.Ct. at 540, 81 L.Ed. at 814. 73 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d) 74 United States v. Moore, supra note 24, at 1268, App. 27. 75 Id. at 1267-1268, App. 25-26. 76 Id. at 1267-1268, App......
  • Goldrick v. Coal Mining Co, BERWIND-WHITE
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...as applied to respondent is without the possibility of such consequences. Equality is its theme, Page 49 cf. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 527, 81 L.Ed. 814. It does not aim at or discriminate against interstate commerce. It is laid upon every purchaser, wit......
  • Shell Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 6, 1966
    ...(Eastern Air Transport, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm., supra, 285 U.S. 147, 153, 52 S.Ct. 340, 341; Henneford v. Silas Mason Co. (1937) 300 U.S. 577, 582--583, 57 S.Ct. 524, 81 L.Ed. 814), 'notwithstanding that (the) ultimate function (of the fuel) is to generate motive power for carryin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
    • United States
    • Land use planning and the environment: a casebook
    • January 23, 2010
    ...one ‘strand’ in the bundle is not a taking, because the aggregate must be viewed in its entirety.”). 26. See Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 582 (1937) (Cardozo, J.) (“The privilege of use is only one attribute, among many, of the bundle of privileges that make up property or ow......
  • The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 207-1, January 1940
    • January 1, 1940
    ...so assumed: Robbins v.Shelby County, 120 U. S. 489, 492; SonnebornBros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506, 515; Henne-ford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577, 583.62 Woodruff v. Parham, supra note 8; Son-neborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506.63 Compare Robbins v. Shelby County, 120U. S. 489, with B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT