The Oyez Project: Federalism Issues - State Tax Decisions http://www.oyez.org/issues/federalism/state-tax/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Constr. Co. <p>May a state impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private company's proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation?</p><p>Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that a "State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private company's proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government, regardless of whether the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation." Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that, "[a]bsent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze (a federal contractor) from Arizona's transaction privilege tax."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1536/ Davis v. Michigan Dept. Of Treasury <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1020/ Dept. Of Revenue v. James Beam Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_389/ Hibbs v. Winn <p>Do the federal Tax Injunction Act and comity principles require federal district courts to dismiss (for lack of jurisdiction) constitutional challenges to state tax credits that directly affect a state's tax system?</p><p>No. In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the intention of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) was to prevent taxpayers from trying to avoid their state taxes through federal litigation. TIA was not intended, however, to prevent all federal interference with state taxation. Justice Ginsburg wrote, "Third-party suits not seeking to stop the collection of a tax <em>imposed on plaintiffs</em> were outside Congress' purview. ... Nowhere does the [legislative] history announce a sweeping congressional direction to prevent federal-court interference with all aspects of state tax administration." (emphasis original) Establishment clause challenges to state tax exemptions for religious eduction could therefore be challenged without violating TIA.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1809/ Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_329/ James M. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_680/ Michigan Nat. Bank v. Michigan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_155/ Phillips Co. v. Dumas School Dist. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_40/ Sullivan v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_610/ United States v. County Of Fresno <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1262/ United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_72_350/ United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_548/