Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 (1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
137 citation events across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization (calctapp, 1999-06-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization
Cal. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
(Goldberg v. Sweet, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 262-263 [109 S.Ct. at pp. 589-590]; Evco v. Jones (1972) 409 U.S. 91, 93-94 [ 93 S.Ct. 349, 350-351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 ].) Yamaha contends that, if a California use tax is imposed upon its gifts, a risk of impermissible double taxation will result.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woosley v. State of California
Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
Such decisions include, for example, Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept, of Revenue, supra, 483 U.S. 232 , discussed above; Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias (1984) 468 U.S. 263 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 200 , 104 S.Ct. 3049 ], which invalidated a liquor tax imposed on local wholesalers, because it exempted locally produced beverages; Evco v. Jones (1972) 409 U.S. 91, 93 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 325, 328-329 , 93 S.Ct. 349 ], which invalidated an unapportioned tax on the gross receipts from sales of personal property by local companies to out-of-state customers; and Greyhound Lines v. Mealey (1948) 334 U.S. 653, 662-663 [ 92 L…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LeTourneau Sales & Service, Inc. v. Olsen
Tenn. · 1985 · confidence medium
The United States Supreme Court has said that “a State may tax the proceeds from services performed in the taxing state, even though they are sold to purchasers in another state.” Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349, 350 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325, 328 (1972).
examined Cited as authority (rule) AIRWORK SER. DIV., ETC. v. Director, Div. of Taxation (7×) also: Cited "see"
N.J. · 1984 · confidence medium
In Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91, 93 , 93 S.Ct. 349, 350 , 34 L.Ed. 2d 325, 328 (1972), the Court distinguished between a "tax * * * validly imposed on the service performed in the taxing State," and "a tax levied on the gross receipts from the sales of tangible personal property in another State," holding only the latter unconstitutional.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board (2×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
Due to the absence of an authoritative tribunal capable of ensuring that the aggregation of taxes is computed on no more than one full value, a state tax, even though ‘fairly apportioned’ to reflect an instrumentality’s presence within the State, may subject foreign commerce ‘“to the risk of a double tax burden to which [domestic] commerce is not exposed, and which the commerce clause forbids.” ’ ” Id., at 447-448 , quoting Evco v. Jones, 409 U. S. 91, 94 (1972), in turn quoting J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Douglas v. Glacier State Telephone Co.
Alaska · 1980 · confidence medium
In Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91, 94 , 93 S.Ct. 349, 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325, 329 (1972), the Court spoke of the “risk of a double tax burden,” rather than a showing of any actual present burden.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles
SCOTUS · 1979 · confidence medium
E. g., Evco v. Jones, 409 U. S. 91, 94 (1972); Central R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Corning Laboratories, Inc. v. Iowa State Department of Revenue
Iowa · 1978 · confidence medium
The United States Supreme Court recognized a state’s right to impose an income tax under similar circumstances in Evco v. Jones 409 U.S. 91, 93 , 93 S.Ct. 349, 350 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325, 328 (1972), where this statement appears: “Our prior cases indicate that a State may tax the proceeds from services performed in the taxing State, even though they are sold to purchasers in another State.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Opinion of the Justices
N.H. · 1977 · confidence medium
Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91, 93 (1972) (per curiam); Adams Mfg.
examined Cited "see" Polychrome International Corp. v. Krigger (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 (1972) (per curiam) (sustaining Commerce Clause challenge, brought by New Mexico corporation, to New Mexico levy on gross receipts); New Jersey Telephone Co. v. Tax Board, 280 U.S. 338, 344 , 50 S.Ct. 111, 112 , 74 L.Ed. 463 (1930) (sustaining Commerce Clause challenge, brought by New Jersey corporation, to New Jersey franchise tax); Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry.
examined Cited "see" Polychrome International Corporation v. Rudolph E. Krigger, Commissioner of Finance, Eric Dawson, Commissioner of Economic Development and Agriculture, Government of the Virgin Islands. Camco International, Limited v. Rudolph E. Krigger, Commissioner of Finance, Clement Magras, Commissioner of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, Derek M. Hodge, Lieutenant Governor, Eric Dawson, Commissioner of Economic Development and Agriculture. Rudolph E. Krigger, Commissioner of Finance, Eric Dawson, Commissioner of Economic Development and Agriculture, Clement Magras, Commissioner of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, Derek M. Hodge, Lieutenant Governor, in 92-7509. Polychrome International Corporation Camco International, Limited, in 92-7510 (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 (1972) (per curiam) (sustaining Commerce Clause challenge, brought by New Mexico corporation, to New Mexico levy on gross receipts); New Jersey Telephone Co. v. Tax Board, 280 U.S. 338, 344 , 50 S.Ct. 111, 112 , 74 L.Ed. 463 (1930) (sustaining Commerce Clause challenge, brought by New Jersey corporation, to New Jersey franchise tax); Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry.
examined Cited "see" Homestake Mining Co. v. Johnson (3×)
S.D. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 (1972); and Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 , 59 S.Ct. 325 , 83 L.Ed. 273 (1939).
examined Cited "see" Silent Hoist & Crane Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation (3×)
N.J. Tax Ct. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hans Rees’ Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 , 51 S.Ct. 385 , 75 L.Ed. 879 (1931), and Evco v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin (2×)
SCOTUS · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evco v. Jones, 409 U. S. 91 (1972).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department (3×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare EVCO v. Jones, 409 U.S. 91 , 93 S.Ct. 349 , 34 L.Ed.2d 325 (1972) (impermissible tax levied on out-of-state sales of reproducible educational materials); National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 , 87 S.Ct. 1389 , 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967) (impermissible tax levied where seller’s only connection with customers in taxing state was by mail or common carrier); Miller Bros.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair (2×)
SCOTUS · 1978 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Evco v. Jones, 409 U. S. 91 (1972), with General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EVCO, Dba EVCO INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNS
v.
JONES, COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF REVENUE OF NEW MEXICO, Et Al.
71-857.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 4, 1972.
409 U.S. 91
Kendall 0. Schlenker argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was James M. Parker., John C. Cook, Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was David L. Norvell, Attorney General.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The petitioner, Evco, is a New Mexico corporation that employs writers, artists, and draftsmen to create and design instructional programs. It develops an educational idea into a finished product that generally consists of reproducible originals of books, films, and magnetic audio tapes. Typical of its contracts is Evco’s agreement with the Department of Agriculture to develop camera-ready copies of programmed textbooks, notebooks, and manuals to be used in an orientation course for forest engineers. Evco’s contracts are negotiated and entered into outside New Mexico; it creates the reproducible originals in New Mexico, and then delivers them to its out-of-state clients. The customers in turn use the orig[*92] inals to publish however many books and manuals are needed to implement the instructional program.

The Commissioner of Revenue for New Mexico levied the State's Emergency School Tax and its Gross Receipts Tax on the total proceeds Evco received from these contracts. [1] The company appealed this assessment to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico, arguing that these taxes on out-of-state sales imposed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. That court found that though the taxes were imposed on the proceeds of out-of-state sales of tangible personal property, rather than on the receipts from sales of services, such taxes were not an unconstitutional burden on commerce. 81 N. M. 724, 472 P. 2d 987. [2] The Supreme Court of New Mexico declined to review the judgment.

In his brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari, which sought our review of that judgment, the Attorney General of New Mexico conceded that the State could not tax the receipts from sales of tangible personal property outside the State. We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the position taken by the Attorney General. 402 U. S. 969.

[*93] On remand, the Court of Appeals adhered to its prior findings that these taxes were imposed on out-of-state sales of tangible personal property, not services, but it concluded that the constitutionality of the taxes should not depend on that distinction. It reinstated and reaffirmed its prior opinion finding the taxes constitutional. 83 N. M. 110, 488 P. 2d 1214. The Supreme Coürt of New Mexico again declined to review the case, and we granted certiorari. 405 U. S. 953.

Our prior cases indicate that a State may tax the proceeds from services performed in the taxing State, even though they are sold to purchasers in another State. Hence, in Department of Treasury v. Ingram-Richardson Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 252, the Court upheld a state gross income tax imposed on a taxpayer engaged in the process of enameling metal parts for its customers. We accepted the finding of the court below that this was a tax on income derived from services, not from the sales of finished products, and we found irrelevant the fact that the sales were made to out-of-state customers. The tax was validly imposed on the service performed in the taxing State. See also Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250.

But a tax levied on the gross receipts from the sales of tangible personal property in another State is an impermissible burden on commerce. In J. D. Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U. S. 307, we rejected as unconstitutional a State’s attempt to impose a gross receipts tax on a taxpayer’s sales of road machinery to out-of-state customers.

“The vice of the statute as applied to receipts from interstate sales is that the tax includes in its measure, without apportionment, receipts derived from activities in interstate commerce; and that the exaction is of such a character that if lawful it may in substance be laid to the fullest extent by States[*94] in which the goods are sold as well as those in which they are manufactured. Interstate commerce would thus be subjected to the risk of a double tax burden to which intrastate commerce is not exposed, and which the commerce clause forbids.” Id., at 311.

See also Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434.

As on the previous petition for certiorari, both parties accept these propositions, and both agree that if the findings of the Court of Appeals of New Mexico are accepted, its judgment must be reversed.

The only real dispute between the parties centers on the factual question of the nature and effect of the taxes. The State contends that these taxes were actually imposed on the receipts from services performed in the State, not on the income from the sale of property outside the State. It argues that the out-of-state purchasers actually paid for the educational programs developed in New Mexico, not for the camera-ready copies that were only incidental to the services purchased. But the Court of Appeals rejected this interpretation of the facts. It found in effect that the reproducible originals were the sine qua non of the contract and that it was the sale of that tangible personal property in another State that New Mexico had taxed. “There are no exceptional circumstances of any kind that would justify us in rejecting the . . . Court’s findings; they are not without factual foundation, and we accept them.” Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. Wood, 344 U. S. 157, 160. See also Grayson v. Harris, 267 U. S. 352, 357-358; Portland Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 229 U. S. 397, 411-412.

Accordingly, since the Court of Appeals approved the imposition of a tax on the proceeds of the out-of-state sales of tangible personal property, its judgment is

Reversed.

1

Taxes were assessed for the period January 1, 1966, through December 31, 1968. From January 1, 1966, through June 30, 1967, the petitioner’s receipts were subject to the Emergency School Tax Act. N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 72-16-2 to 72-16-19, 1953 Compilation, repealed by N. M. Laws 1966, c. 47, § 22. From July 1, 1967, through December 31, 1968, the remainder of the taxable period, Evco’s receipts were taxed under the Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act. N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 72-16A-1 to 72-16A-19, 1953 Compilation (Supp. 1971).

2

The court did find, however, that the receipts from sales of tangible personal property to government agencies and certain specified organizations were statutorily exempted from taxation. Those specific exemptions are not at issue here.