Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr Co
Decision Date | 19 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-119,91-119 |
Citation | 112 S.Ct. 2447,505 U.S. 214,120 L.Ed.2d 174 |
Parties | WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
During 1973-1978, respondent chewing gum manufacturer, which is based in Chicago, sold its products in Wisconsin through a sales force consisting of a regional manager and various "field" representatives, all of whom engaged in various activities in addition to requesting orders from customers. Wisconsin orders were sent to Chicago for acceptance, and were filled by shipment through common carrier from outside the State. In 1980, petitioner Wisconsin Department of Revenue concluded that respondent's in-state business activities during the years in question had been sufficient to support imposition of a franchise tax. Respondent objected to the assessment of that tax, maintaining that it was immune under 15 U.S.C. § 381(a), which prohibits a State from taxing the income of a corporation whose only business activities within the State consist of "solicitation of orders" for tangible goods, provided that the orders are sent outside the State for approval and the goods are delivered from out-of-state. Ultimately, the State Supreme Court disallowed the imposition of the tax.
Held: Respondent's activities in Wisconsin fell outside the protection of § 381(a). Pp. 220-235.
(a) In addition to any speech or conduct that explicitly or implicitly proposes a sale, "solicitation of orders" as used in § 381(a) covers those activities that are entirely ancillary to requests for purchases—those that serve no independent business function apart from their connection to the soliciting of orders. The statutory phrase should not be interpreted narrowly to cover only actual requests for purchases or the actions that are absolutely essential to making those requests, but includes the entire process associated with inviting an order. Thus, providing a car and a stock of free samples to salesmen is part of the "solicitation of orders," because the only reason to do it is to facilitate requests for purchases. On the other hand, the statutory phrase should not be interpreted broadly to include all activities that are routinely, or even closely, associated with solicitation or customarily performed by salesmen. Those activities that the company would have reason to engage in anyway but chooses to allocate to its in-state sales force are not covered. For example, employing salesmen to repair or service the company's products is not part of the "solicitation of orders," since there is good reason to get that done whether or not the company has a sales force. Pp. 223-231.
(b) There is a de minimis exception to the activities that forfeit § 381 immunity. Whether a particular activity is sufficiently de minimis to avoid loss of § 381 immunity depends upon whether that activity establishes a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State. Pp. 231-232.
(c) Respondent's Wisconsin business activities were not limited to those specified in § 381. Although the regional manager's recruitment, training, and evaluation of employees and intervention in credit disputes, as well as the company's use of hotels and homes for sales-related meetings, must be viewed as ancillary to requesting purchases, the sales representatives' practices of replacing retailers' stale gum without cost, of occasionally using "agency stock checks" to sell gum to retailers who had agreed to install new display racks, and of storing gum for these purposes at home or in rented space cannot be so viewed, since those activities constituted independent business functions quite separate from the requesting of orders and respondent had a business purpose for engaging in them whether or not it employed a sales force. Moreover, the nonimmune activities, when considered together, are not de minimis. While their relative magnitude was not large compared to respondent's other Wisconsin operations, they constituted a nontrivial additional connection with the State. Pp. 232-235.
160 Wis.2d 53, 465 N.W.2d 800, (1991) reversed and remanded.
O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined.
F. Thomas Creeron, III, Madison, Wis., argued for petitioner.
E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., argued for respondent.
Section 101(a) of Public Law 86-272, 73 Stat. 555 (1959), 15 U.S.C. § 381, prohibits a State from taxing the income of a corporation whose only business activities within the State consist of "solicitation of orders" for tangible goods, provided that the orders are sent outside the State for approval and the goods are delivered from out-of-state. The issue in this case is whether respondent's activities in Wisconsin fell outside the protection of this provision.
Respondent William Wrigley, Jr., Co. is the world's largest manufacturer of chewing gum. Based in Chicago, it sells gum nationwide through a marketing system that divides the country into districts, regions, and territories. During the relevant period (1973-1978), the Midwestern district included a Milwaukee region, covering most of Wisconsin and parts of other States, which was subdivided into several geographic territories.
The district manager for the Midwestern district had his residence and company office in Illinois, and visited Wisconsin only six to nine days each year, usually for a sales meeting or to call on a particularly important account. The regional manager of the Milwaukee region resided in Wisconsin, but Wrigley did not provide him with a company office. He had general responsibility for sales activities in the region, and would typically spend 80-95% of his time working with the sales representatives in the field or contacting certain "key" accounts. The remainder of his time was devoted to administrative activities, including writing and reviewing company reports, recruiting new sales representatives, making recommendations to the district manager concerning the hiring, firing, and compensation of sales representatives, and evaluating their performance. He would preside at full-day sales strategy meetings for all regional sales representatives once or twice a year. The manager from 1973 to 1976, John Kroyer, generally held these meetings in the "office" he maintained in the basement of his home, whereas his successor, Gary Hecht, usually held them at a hotel or motel. (Kroyer claimed income tax deductions for this office, but Wrigley did not reimburse him for it, though it provided a filing cabinet.) Mr. Kroyer also intervened two or three times a year to help arrange a solution to credit disputes between the Chicago office and important local accounts. Mr. Hecht testified that he never engaged in such activities, although Wrigley's formal position description for regional sales manager continued to list as one of the assigned duties "[r]epresent[ing] the company on credit problems as necessary."
The sales or "field" representatives in the Milwaukee region, each of whom was assigned his own territory, resided in Wisconsin. They were provided with company cars, but not with offices. They were also furnished a stock of gum (with an average wholesale value of about $1000), a supply of display racks, and promotional literature. These materials were kept at home, except that one salesman, whose apartment was too small, rented storage space at about $25 per month, for which he was reimbursed by Wrigley.
On a typical day, the sales representative would load up the company car with a supply of display racks and several cases of gum, and would visit accounts within his territory. In addition to handing out promotional materials and free samples, and directly requesting orders of Wrigley products, he would engage in a number of other activities which Wrigley asserts were designed to promote sales of its products. He would, for example, provide free display racks to retailers (perhaps several on any given day), and would seek to have these new racks, as well as pre-existing ones, prominently located. The new racks were usually filled from the retailer's existing stock of Wrigley gum, but it would sometimes happen—perhaps once a month—that the retailer had no Wrigley products on hand and did not want to wait until they could be ordered from the wholesaler. In that event, the rack would be filled from the stock of gum in the salesman's car. This gum, which would have a retail value of $15 to $20, was not provided without charge. The representative would issue an "agency stock check" to the retailer, indicating the quantity supplied; he would send a copy of this to the Chicago office or to the wholesaler, and the retailer would ultimately be billed (by the wholesaler) in the proper amount.
When visiting a retail account, Wrigley's sales representative would also check the retailer's stock of gum for freshness, and would replace stale gum at no cost to the retailer. This was a regular part of a representative's duties, and at any given time up to 40% of the stock of gum in his possession would be stale gum that had been removed from retail stores. After accumulating a sufficient amount of stale product, the representative either would ship it back to Wrigley's Chicago office or would dispose of it at a local Wisconsin landfill.
Wrigley did not own or lease real property in Wisconsin, did not operate any manufacturing, training, or warehouse facility, and did not have a telephone listing or bank account. All Wisconsin orders were sent to Chicago for acceptance, and were filled by shipment through common carrier from outside the State. Credit and collection activities were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walsh v. E. Penn Mfg. Co.
...minimis principle reflects judicial wisdom that the law does not engage in mere trifles. Wis. Dep't of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. , 505 U.S. 214, 231, 112 S.Ct. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992).10 The district court in Alvarez pegged "the compensable time for each activity [ ] [to] th......
-
Chambers v. Dist. of Columbia
...to be incorporated in every statute, absent an indication to the contrary, see Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. , 505 U.S. 214, 231, 112 S.Ct. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). Whatever the merits of this argument, Brown excludes far more than de minimis harms. We ha......
-
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat'l Bank
...within the same section of a statute must be accorded a consistent meaning. See Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 225, 112 S.Ct. 2447, 2454-2455, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). Section 109 consists of two parallel clauses: Federal credit union membership is lim......
-
Shays v. Federal Election Com'n
...might well "solicit" though it doesn't "ask" in the sense of "calling for an answer." Cf. Wis. Dep't of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 223, 112 S.Ct. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) (considering it "evident" that the term "solicitation of orders" "includes, not just explic......
-
State + Local Tax Insights: Winter 2014
...that 11 visits over a four year period were insufficient to establish nexus). 30 Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr. Co., 505 U.S. 214, 231 31 In a recent survey of state tax departments, with very rare and limited exceptions, owning or leasing property in a state establishes......
-
Minnesota Tax Court Holds Merchandisers Create Corporate Income Tax Nexus For Out-Of-State Distributor
...were then shipped into Minnesota from other states. However, the actions of these sales representatives were not at issue in this case. 4 505 U.S. 214 5 Sales representatives performed "agency stock checks" by helping retailers display the gum and by refilling retailers' gum inventory. 6 Sp......
-
Hospice Face 2 Face Audit Update
...substantial compliance as a defense to small, technical breaches that cause trifling harm. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. Wrigley Co., 505 U.S. 214, 231 (1992) (noting general applicability of "venerable maxim de minimis non curat lex ("the law cares not for There are also principles in both......
-
Virginia Tax Commissioner Allows Deduction For Gross Receipts Attributable To Business In Other States For BPOL Purposes
...Credit Co. v. Chesterfield County, 707 S.E. 2d 311 (Va. 2011). 12 Citing Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 13 Ruling of Commissioner, P.D. 10-228, Virginia Department of Taxation, Sep. 29, 2010. 14 In addition, the Department included an example show......
-
Andrew Stone Mayo, for God and Money: the Place of the Megachurch Within the Bankruptcy Code
...someone to repair and to service the company’s210 See 11 U.S.C. §§ 303, 1112(c) (2006).Wis. Dep’t of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992).Id at 217–19.Id. at 219.Id. (“Section 381(a)(1) confers immunity from state income taxes on any company whose only business activitie......
-
Constitutional, legal, and policy issues regarding the use of tax bounty hunters.
...See, e.g., Carter, supra note 2; Rendleman & Neely, supra note 6. (8) E.g., Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992). (9) See generally Annotation, Disqualification of Judge, Justice of the Peace, or Similar Judicial Officer for Pecuniary Interest in ......
-
Section 2 Jurisdiction to Tax Foreign Corporations
...no uniform definition has emerged from the myriad state court decisions. In Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992), the United States Supreme Court finally considered the scope of activities that are protected under Public Law No. 86-272. Wrigley, ......
-
Inadvertently establishing state taxing jurisdiction through the Internet.
...purchases and all other activities entirely ancillary to making these requests; see William Wrigley,Jr. Co. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 505 US 214 Nexus Through the Internet While the current "physical-presence" and "solicitation" tests have traditionally provided businesses with a fair ......
-
Ala. Admin. Code r. 810-27-1-.19 Public Law 86-272 Exemption From Income Tax
...and this rule has been revised to conform to such standard. Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S., 112 S.Ct. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 . In those cases where there may be reasonable differences of opinion between Alabama and a Signatory State as to whether the d......
-
Massachusetts Register Issue 2019-1402, October 18, 2019
...ancillary to the solicitation of orders of tangible personal property. See Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 US 214 (1992). Activities that take place after a sale will ordinarily not be considered entirely ancillary to the solicitation of such sale. 3. The statut......