Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne

Last updated
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 12, 2014
Decided May 18, 2015
Full case nameComptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Brian Wynne et ux.
Docket no. 13-485
Citations575 U.S. 542 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 1787; 191 L. Ed. 2d 813
Case history
Prior431 Md. 147, 64 A.3d 453 (2013); cert. granted, 572 U.S. 1134(2014).
Holding
Maryland's personal income tax scheme, which consists of a state and county income tax, violated the Commerce Clause because it did not allow a credit against the county income tax for income taxes paid to other states.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor
DissentScalia, joined by Thomas (Parts I and II)
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia (except first paragraph)
DissentGinsburg, joined by Scalia, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015), is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to Maryland's personal income tax scheme and found that the failure to provide a full credit for income taxes paid to other states was unconstitutional.

Contents

Background

Dormant Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause provides:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

—  Article I, §8, clause 3

Although the text of the clause appears to be a simple grant of power to Congress, the Supreme Court has long held that the clause was intended to include a negative command prohibiting state taxation that discriminates against interstate commerce even if Congress has not acted. [1] : 8  The doctrine, known as the Dormant Commerce Clause (or the "Negative Commerce Clause" by its detractors), "strikes at one of the chief evils that led to the adoption of the Constitution, namely, state tariffs and other laws that burdened interstate commerce." [1] : 8 

Case background

Like most other U.S. states, Maryland imposes a tax on the income residents earn both in Maryland and out-of-state as well as on the income earned within Maryland by non-residents. [1] : 5  The Maryland income tax consists of both a "state" income tax and a "county" income tax, both of which are collected by the state's comptroller of the treasury. [1] : 5  Residents who earn income outside of Maryland may receive a credit against the state, but not the county income tax for income taxes paid on that income to other states. [1] : 5  Nonresidents who earn income in Maryland must pay the state income tax and, in lieu of the county income tax, a "special nonresident tax" that was set at a rate "equal to the lowest county income tax rate set by any Maryland county." [1] : 5 

In 2006, Maryland residents Brian and Karen Wynne, a married couple, earned income from other states through an S corporation, which filed state income tax returns in 39 states. [1] : 6  An S Corporation passes income through to its shareholders for income tax purposes; in contrast, C corporations are considered separate entities from their shareholders for income tax purposes. [1] : 6  On their 2006 tax return, the Wynnes claimed an income tax credit against both their state and county income taxes. [1] : 6  The office of the Comptroller of the Treasury allowed the credit against the state, but not the county, income tax and, accordingly, assessed a deficiency. [1] : 6  The Hearings and Appeals Section of the Comptroller's Office and, on appeal, the Maryland Tax Court both upheld the assessment. [1] : 6  The Circuit Court for Howard County reversed, finding that the county income tax system violated the Commerce Clause. [1] : 6  The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, upheld the Circuit Court's ruling that Maryland's income tax scheme violated the Commerce Clause, finding that the tax scheme violated the fair apportionment and nondiscrimination prongs of the four-prong test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady . [1] : 6–7 

Opinion of the Court

Timeline

The case was first considered at the court's January 10, 2014 conference, and the view of the Solicitor General was then requested. [2] The Solicitor General's amicus brief was received on April 4. The Supreme Court considered the case at their conferences on May 15 and May 22, after which they granted certiorari on May 27. [2] Oral arguments were heard on November 12 and the court's opinion was released on May 18, 2015. [2]

Majority opinion

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor joined.

The majority upheld the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling on the grounds of stare decisis, stating that "our existing dormant Commerce Clause cases all but dictate the result reached in this case." [1] : 9  Three previous cases were "particularly instructive" in deciding the case; the cases all involved taxes on gross receipts that the Supreme Court struck down for posing the risk of multiple taxation. [1] : 9–10  The majority rejected arguments that those cases involved gross receipts rather than net income and corporations rather than individuals. [1] : 10–13  The majority also rejected the Comptroller's argument that individuals should be distinguished from corporations for the purposes of this case because individuals can vote to change the discriminatory tax scheme. [1] : 13–15  In the majority's view, "the notion that the victims of such discrimination have a complete remedy at the polls is fanciful" and that "it is even more farfetched to suggest that natural persons with out-of-state income are better able to influence state lawmakers than large corporations headquartered in the State." [1] : 15  They also found "no merit" in the Comptroller's argument that the statute is constitutional because it was not intended to discriminate against interstate commerce because the Commerce Clause "regulates effects, not motives, and it does not require courts to inquire into voters' or legislators' reasons for enacting a law that has a discriminatory effect." [1] : 21  The majority also criticized the primary dissent's arguments—that the Dormant Commerce Clause does not limit the States' sovereign power to tax income of their residents, wherever earned—as "confus[ing] what a State may do without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with what it may do without violating the Commerce Clause." [1] : 15–16 

The majority proceeded to explain the history and merits of the "internal consistency test." [1] : 21–24  The test considers the hypothetical situation in which every state adopted the tax structure in question and then asks whether interstate commerce would be at a disadvantage to intrastate commerce. [1] : 21–22  The majority applied the internal consistency test to the hypothetical situation, paralleling Maryland's tax scheme, in which every state imposed a 1.25% income tax on residents' income earned within the state, a 1.25% income tax on residents' income earned in other states, and a 1.25% income tax on income earned by nonresidents within the state. [1] : 24–25  In this case, intrastate income would only be taxed once at 1.25% but interstate income would always be taxed by both states involved (1.25% by the state of residence and 1.25% in the state where the income was earned). [1] : 25  The majority, quoting West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy , thus found that "Maryland's tax scheme is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff...which is fatal because tariffs are '[t]he paradigmatic example of a law discriminating against interstate commerce.'" [1] : 25 

Subsequent developments

Maryland tax refunds

Following the ruling, Maryland offered refunds to Maryland residents who had paid the local income tax without a credit for income taxes paid to other states. Local governments in Maryland had prepared for the prospect of having to issue refunds before the Supreme Court issued its decision. [3] The local governments were estimated to owe $200 million in refunds to 55,000 taxpayers, with $115 million (including interest) owed by Montgomery County alone. [4] The state government planned to pay the refunds, then recover the refunded money from local governments by reducing future tax revenue distributions. [4] Due to the statute of limitations, the refund was available to all taxpayers affected by the Wynne decision for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014; refunds for tax years as early as 2006 were available for some taxpayers who had filed a timely amended return. [3]

In September 2015, Maryland governor Larry Hogan launched a campaign to raise awareness of the availability of tax refunds. Hogan, who assumed office in January 2015 after the Supreme Court had heard oral arguments in the case, [2] relished that he had "the pleasure of sending refund checks." [3] The Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland, Peter Franchot, said he had an obligation to defend Maryland's tax scheme, but that he "always kind of secretly agreed with them." [4]

Iowa tax refunds

Iowa's personal income tax scheme did not offer a credit for out-of-state taxes against an income tax surcharge for local school districts. After the Wynne decision, the state determined that this was unconstitutional and began to offer refunds for 2012, 2013, and 2014. The state estimated that if every eligible taxpayer filed to claim a refund the total amount would be $3 million annually for 2012, 2013, and 2014. The state would pay for the refunds from its general revenue fund, but local school districts would have to raise tax rates to cover the lost revenue in future tax years. [5] [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Form 1040</span> IRS tax record

Form 1040, officially, the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, is an IRS tax form used for personal federal income tax returns filed by United States residents. The form calculates the total taxable income of the taxpayer and determines how much is to be paid to or refunded by the government.

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State income tax</span> Form of taxation in the United States

In addition to federal income tax collected by the United States, most individual U.S. states collect a state income tax. Some local governments also impose an income tax, often based on state income tax calculations. Forty-two states and many localities in the United States impose an income tax on individuals. Eight states impose no state income tax, and a ninth, New Hampshire, imposes an individual income tax on dividends and interest income but not other forms of income. Forty-seven states and many localities impose a tax on the income of corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income tax in the United States</span> Form of taxation in the United States

The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Tax-free shopping (TFS) is the buying of goods in another country or state and obtaining a refund of the sales tax which has been collected by the retailer on those goods. The sales tax may be variously described as a sales tax, goods and services tax (GST), value added tax (VAT), or consumption tax.

United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out-of-state residents may be called into account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress' power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing.

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Maryland created a program that, 1) purchased junked cars, 2) paid a bounty for those with Maryland license plates and, 3) imposed more stringent documentation requirements on out-of-state processors, in an effort to reduce the number of abandoned cars in Maryland.

Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Kentucky law that provides a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds issued by the state and its municipalities. The Court held in a 7-2 vote that the State of Kentucky does not engage in unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce by exempting the interest on its bonds from residents' taxable income while taxing the interest earned on the bonds of other states. The case has national implications because thirty-six (36) states have tax schemes similar to the one at issue in Kentucky.

George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the state statute under which the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued certificates of public convenience and necessity to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Maryland law prohibiting oil producers and refiners from operating service stations within its borders. The challengers, including Exxon, claimed that the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, which disagreed with Exxon et al.: "Since Maryland's entire gasoline supply flows in interstate commerce and since there are no local producers or refiners, such claims of disparate treatment between interstate and local commerce would be meritless." Exxon challenged the Maryland statute in Circuit Court which ruled the statute invalid. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents. This "market participant" doctrine is an exception to the so-called negative commerce clause, which ordinarily deems state regulations invalid where they discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce for the purpose of economic protectionism.

Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states, although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.

Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), is a case in the Supreme Court of the United States holding that states may not tax federal pensions if they exempt their own state pensions from taxation. In the 1930s, the federal and state governments began to charge income tax on salaries paid to each other's employees. However, reciprocal treatment was required under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The Court's ruling extended the reciprocity to pensions, since they are a form of deferred compensation for services previously rendered by an employee.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held by a 5–4 majority that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The decision overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which had held that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state cannot tax out-of-state insurance companies at a greater rate than domestic insurance companies under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne,No. 13-485 , 575 U.S. ___(2015).
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Docket No. 13-485". United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 Cox, Erin; Dresser, Michael (28 September 2015). "Hogan urges people to collect tax refunds". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 Turque, Bill (28 September 2015). "Maryland, opponent of Wynne tax case, now encouraging residents to seek refunds". The Washington Post . Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  5. ↑ Petroski, William (20 October 2015). "Court ruling gives 32,000 Iowa households tax refunds". Des Moines Register. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  6. ↑ Henchman, John (21 October 2015). "Iowa to Refund Local Income Taxes After Wynne Decision". Tax Foundation. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.