Cases by Issue - Intergovernmental Tax Immunity

Nebraska Department Of Revenue v. Loewenstein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-823

Petitioner

Nebraska Department Of Revenue

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Loewenstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 123 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1994

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1994

Advocates

L. Jay Bartel (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Terry R. Wittler (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nebraska Department Of Revenue, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 31 U.S.C. 3124

None

Harper v. Virginia Department Of Taxation

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-794

Petitioner

Harper et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Virginia Department Of Taxation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 86 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1993

Advocates

Michael J. Kator (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gail Starling Marshall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Harper, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Barker v. Kansas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-611

Petitioner

Barker et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kansas et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 594 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Advocates

James A. D. Bartle (on behalf of the Respondents)

John F. Manning (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Kevin M. Fowler (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Barker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 4 U.S.C. 111

None

California Equalization Bd. v. Sierra Summit

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-681

Petitioner

California Equalization Bd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Summit

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 844 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Robert F. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

David Ray Jenkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for California Equalization Bd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 960

None

South Carolina v. Baker

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:20 +0000

Location

South Carolina Legislature

1101 Gervais Street Columbia SC 29201

Columbia, SC 29201

United States

34° 0' 3.2724" N, 81° 2' 6.4176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

94 ORIG

Plaintiff

South Carolina

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Baker

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 505 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Facts of the Case

In 1982, Congress passed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). The statute removed the federal income tax exemption for interest earned on publicly offered long-term bonds issued by state and local governments unless they were issued in registered form. South Carolina declared that both bearer and registered bonds issued by states and municipalities had been free from taxation since Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co (1895). The federal government claimed that the Act did not eliminate the state's power to issue bonds free from taxation; rather it regulated the types of bonds to be exempt.

Question

Did the TEFRA violate the Tenth Amendment and intergovernmental tax immunity?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Baker, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

The Court found that its subsequent decisions overruled Pollock so that state bond interest is not immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. Therefore, the owners of state bonds have no constitutional authority to exempt taxes on the earned income. TEFRA imposes no direct tax on the states; it is only collected from bondholders. The Act is nondiscriminatory because the regulations are imposed on the federal government as well as the state governments.

United States v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-702

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 720 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 8, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Daniel M. Friedman (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Mexico, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Massachusetts v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1500

Petitioner

Massachusetts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 444 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1978

Advocates

Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States)

Terence P. O'Malley (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1970, Congress imposed an annual registration tax on all civil aircraft that fly in the navigable airspace of the United States. The state of Massachusetts owned and utilized a helicopter for the purpose of patrolling highways and fulfilling other police duties. When Massachusetts refused to pay the tax, the federal government collected it from the state's accounts, plus interest and penalties. Massachusetts then sought a refund of the money collected.

Question

Did the tax on civil aircraft violate the implied immunity of state governments from federal taxation?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 4491

No. The Court held that so long as charges did not discriminate against state functions, were based on fair approximations of uses of the system of navigable airspace, and were structured to produce revenues that did not exceed the total cost of the benefits to be supplied to national airsystem, there could be no basis for claims that the National Government was "using its taxing powers to control, unduly interfere with, or destroy" Massachusetts' ability to perform "essential services." The Court emphasized its reluctance to enlarge the scope of state immunity from federal taxation.

Agricultural Bank v. Tax Comm'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

755

Appellee

Tax Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Agricultural Bank

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 339 (1968)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Tax Comm'n, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 548

None

Dept. Of Employment v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Dept. Of Employment

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 355 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, November 15, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2281

None

United States v. Boyd

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

185

Petitioner

Boyd

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 39 (1964)

Argued

April 20-21, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Boyd, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Atomic Energy

None

Fed. Land Bank v. Kiowa County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fed. Land Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kiowa County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 146 (1961)

Argued

Monday, October 16, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fed. Land Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Moses Lake Homes v. Grant County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

212

Petitioner

Moses Lake Homes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grant County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 744 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, March 23, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 17, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Moses Lake Homes, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Rohr Corp. v. San Diego County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

295

Appellee

San Diego County

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Rohr Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 628 (1960)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1960

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Rohr Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

United States v. City Of Detroit

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

City Of Detroit

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 466 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for City Of Detroit, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

U.S. v. Township Of Muskegon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Township Of Muskegon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 38

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 484 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Township Of Muskegon, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

City Of Detroit v. Murray Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Murray Corp.

Respondent

City Of Detroit

Consolidation

No. 36

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 489 (1958)

Argued

November 13-14, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for City Of Detroit, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Werner Co. v. Director Of Taxation

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Director Of Taxation

Respondent

Werner Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 492 (1956)

Argued

March 5-6, 1956

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Director Of Taxation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Society For Savings v. Bowers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

204

Appellee

Bowers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Society For Savings

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 220

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 143 (1955)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1955

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Society For Savings, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

American Motors Corp. v. Kenosha

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

343

Appellee

Kenosha

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

American Motors Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 21 (1958)

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kenosha, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None