external consistency requirement in Washington

2009“The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.” Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 262 .

2009"The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 262 , 109 S.Ct. 582 .

2006"The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 262 , 109 S.Ct. 582 . ¶ 28 To determine external consistency, the court looks to the "economic justification for the State's claim upon the value taxed." Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. at 185 , 115 S.Ct. 1331 .

2006“The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.” Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 262 . ¶28 To determine external consistency, the court looks to the “economic justification for the State’s claim upon the value taxed.” Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. at 185 .

1999Moreover, as the Supreme court in Tyler Pipe specifically held: The facial unconstitutionality of Washington’s gross receipts tax cannot be alleviated by examining the effect of legislation enacted by its sister States, Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 , as, “[T]he immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment.” Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 n.11 (quoting Armco, Inc. v. Hardesty, mi U.S. 638, 645 n.8, 104 S. Ct. 26

1999Moreover, as the Supreme court in Tyler Pipe specifically held: The facial unconstitutionality of Washington's gross receipts tax cannot be alleviated by examining the effect of legislation enacted by its sister States, Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 , 107 S.Ct. 2810 , as, "[T]he immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment." Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 n. 11, 107 S.Ct. 2810 (quoting Armco, Inc., 467 U.S. at 6

1999Moreover, as the Supreme court in Tyler Pipe specifically held: The facial unconstitutionality of Washington's gross receipts tax cannot be alleviated by examining the effect of legislation enacted by its sister States, Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 , 107 S.Ct. 2810 , as, "[T]he immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment." Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 n. 11, 107 S.Ct. 2810 (quoting Armco, Inc., 467 U.S. at 6

1999Moreover, as the Supreme court in Tyler Pipe specifically held: The facial unconstitutionality of Washington's gross receipts tax cannot be alleviated by examining the effect of legislation enacted by its sister States, Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 , 107 S.Ct. 2810 , as, "[T]he immunities implicit in the Commerce Clause and the potential taxing power of a State can hardly be made to depend, in the world of practical affairs, on the shifting incidence of the varying tax laws of the various States at a particular moment." Tyler, 483 U.S. at 242 n. 11, 107 S.Ct. 2810 (quoting Armco, Inc., 467 U.S. at 6

2009KMS, 135 Wash.App. at 504 , 146 P.3d 1195 .

2009We held that "attributing the entire proceeds of KMS's registered representatives to KMS's Seattle office because that is KMS's sole office violates the external consistency requirement of federal commerce clause jurisprudence." KMS, 135 Wash.App. at 509 , 146 P.3d 1195 .

2006While the Supreme Court has characterized the principle of fair apportionment as "the lineal descendent of Western Live Stock's prohibition of multiple taxation," Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 514 U.S. at 184 , *1205 115 S.Ct. 1331 (referring to Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 , 58 S.Ct. 546 , 82 L.Ed. 823 (1938)), the external consistency requirement ultimately mandates that a tax not "reach[] beyond that portion of value that is fairly attributable to economic activity within the taxing State," irrespective of whether there is a genuine risk of multiple taxation.

2006While the Supreme Court has characterized the principle of fair apportionment as "the lineal descendent of Western Live Stock's prohibition of multiple taxation," Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 514 U.S. at 184 , *1205 115 S.Ct. 1331 (referring to Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 , 58 S.Ct. 546 , 82 L.Ed. 823 (1938)), the external consistency requirement ultimately mandates that a tax not "reach[] beyond that portion of value that is fairly attributable to economic activity within the taxing State," irrespective of whether there is a genuine risk of multiple taxation.