11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2023In this regard, Appellant correctly acknowledges that, under the internal consistency test, we must “assume that every state/local government enacts the same tax regime,” and determine “whether such hypothetical harmonization imposes a greater burden upon interstate commerce than is imposed upon intrastate commerce.” Id. at 36 (citing Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 261 (1989)). 2022Second Prong - Fair Apportionment 6 The second prong of the Complete Auto test “‘ensures that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction.’” Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. at 184 (quoting Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 260-61 (1989)). | 4 | 5 |
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.red2 sentences2023As for external consistency, a court must examine “the economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value taxed, to discover whether a State’s tax reaches beyond that portion of value that is fairly attributable to economic activity within the taxing State.” Id. (citation omitted). 1 Presently, Appellant contends that the Philadelphia Tax violates the fair apportionment and discrimination prongs of the Complete Auto test. [J-5A-B-2023] - 3 Relevant to the instant appeal, in 2015, the high Court grappled with these issues in Wynne, supra. Therein, the Court examined Maryland’s tax sche 2023See Armco Inc., 467 U.S. at 644 (commingling consideration of the internal consistency test and the discrimination prong of the Complete Auto test because “[a] tax that unfairly apportions income from other States is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce”); see also City’s Brief at 25-26 (advocating that the discrimination and fair apportionment prongs of the Complete Auto test merge). [J-5A-B-2023] - 30 Additionally, we find that the Philadelphia Tax meets Complete Auto’s external consistency test, which examines “the economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value | 3 | 3 |
Armco Inc. v. Hardestygreen2 sentences2023See Armco Inc., 467 U.S. at 644 (commingling consideration of the internal consistency test and the discrimination prong of the Complete Auto test because “[a] tax that unfairly apportions income from other States is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce”); see also City’s Brief at 25-26 (advocating that the discrimination and fair apportionment prongs of the Complete Auto test merge). [J-5A-B-2023] - 30 Additionally, we find that the Philadelphia Tax meets Complete Auto’s external consistency test, which examines “the economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value 2023See Armco Inc., 467 U.S. at 644 (commingling consideration of the internal consistency test and the discrimination prong of the Complete Auto test because “[a] tax that unfairly apportions income from other States is a form of discrimination against interstate commerce”); see also City’s Brief at 25-26 (advocating that the discrimination and fair apportionment prongs of the Complete Auto test merge). [J-5A-B-2023] - 30 Additionally, we find that the Philadelphia Tax meets Complete Auto’s external consistency test, which examines “the economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value | 3 | 3 |
Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynnegreen2 sentences2023As for external consistency, a court must examine “the economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value taxed, to discover whether a State’s tax reaches beyond that portion of value that is fairly attributable to economic activity within the taxing State.” Id. (citation omitted). 1 Presently, Appellant contends that the Philadelphia Tax violates the fair apportionment and discrimination prongs of the Complete Auto test. [J-5A-B-2023] - 3 Relevant to the instant appeal, in 2015, the high Court grappled with these issues in Wynne, supra. Therein, the Court examined Maryland’s tax sche 2023A failure of internal consistency shows as a matter of law that a State is attempting to take more than its fair share of taxes from the interstate transaction, since allowing 10 Id. at 287 . 11 Compare Zilka, 2022 WL 67789 , at *3 (“Failure to meet any one prong [of the Complete Auto test] renders the tax unconstitutional.”), with Wynne, 575 U.S. at 561-62 (“[T]he tax schemes held to be unconstitutional in [prior cases] had the potential to result in the discriminatory double taxation of income earned out of state and created a powerful incentive to engage in intrastate rather than interstate | 2 | 6 |
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.green2 sentences2018In its recent decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2080 , 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018), 13 the United States Supreme Court opined that "the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State." Wayfair , 138 S.Ct. at 2099 (emphasis added). 2018In its recent decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2080 , 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018), 13 the United States Supreme Court opined that "the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State." Wayfair , 138 S.Ct. at 2099 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences2023A failure of internal consistency shows as a matter of law that a State is attempting to take more than its fair share of taxes from the interstate transaction, since allowing 10 Id. at 287 . 11 Compare Zilka, 2022 WL 67789 , at *3 (“Failure to meet any one prong [of the Complete Auto test] renders the tax unconstitutional.”), with Wynne, 575 U.S. at 561-62 (“[T]he tax schemes held to be unconstitutional in [prior cases] had the potential to result in the discriminatory double taxation of income earned out of state and created a powerful incentive to engage in intrastate rather than interstate 2023A failure of internal consistency shows as a matter of law that a State is attempting to take more than its fair share of taxes from the interstate transaction, since allowing 10 Id. at 287 . 11 Compare Zilka, 2022 WL 67789 , at *3 (“Failure to meet any one prong [of the Complete Auto test] renders the tax unconstitutional.”), with Wynne, 575 U.S. at 561-62 (“[T]he tax schemes held to be unconstitutional in [prior cases] had the potential to result in the discriminatory double taxation of income earned out of state and created a powerful incentive to engage in intrastate rather than interstate | 4 | 2003–2023 |
Lawrence v. State Tax Comm'n of Miss.
green
2 sentences2023It is well-established that “domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation” because the “[e]njoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government.” Lawrence, 286 U.S. at 279 . 2023It is well-established that “domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation” because the “[e]njoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government.” Lawrence, 286 U.S. at 279 . | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp
red
2 sentences2013Substantial Nexus In Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the standard for establishing the substantial nexus prong of the Complete Auto test — physical presence within the taxing state. 2013Substantial Nexus In Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the standard for establishing the substantial nexus prong of the Complete Auto test — physical presence within the taxing state. | 2 | 2013–2018 |
HK Porter Co., Inc. v. Com. of Pa.
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.