import-export clause in Illinois

2023In turn, the tonnage clause was adopted to avoid the possibility that states could effectively “nullify” the import-export clause by taxing the privilege of access to their vessels, and to further restrain states from obtaining “ ‘geographical vessel-related tax advantages.’ ” Id. (quoting Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska, 557 U.S. 1, 7 (2009)). ¶ 55 Thus, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the tonnage clause to prohibit more than just “classic” tonnage duties, such as taxes on a ship based on its capacity.

2023In turn, the tonnage clause was adopted to avoid the possibility that states could effectively “nullify” the import-export clause by taxing the privilege of access to their vessels, and to further restrain states from obtaining “ ‘geographical vessel-related tax advantages.’ ” Id. (quoting Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska, 557 U.S. 1, 7 (2009)). ¶ 55 Thus, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the tonnage clause to prohibit more than just “classic” tonnage duties, such as taxes on a ship based on its capacity.

1987I, sec. 10, cl. 2.) At the time of the Miehle decision, the lead case involving the interpretation of the import-export clause was Brown v. Maryland (1827), 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419, 419 , 6 L.

1960The landmark case on the construction to be given the import-export clause is Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 , 6 L. ed. 678.

1987Stat. 1985, ch. 120, par. 441.) In response to the Department’s inquiry concerning the application of ROTA to the taxpayer, a vice-president of Limited wrote a letter stating that in Miehle Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Department of Revenue (1960), 18 Ill. 2d 445 , 164 N.E.2d 1 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that the imposition of ROTA upon an importer engaged in the business of selling imported goods to Illinois customers violated the import-export clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art.

1987Stat. 1985, ch. 120, par. 441.) In response to the Department’s inquiry concerning the application of ROTA to the taxpayer, a vice-president of Limited wrote a letter stating that in Miehle Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Department of Revenue (1960), 18 Ill. 2d 445 , 164 N.E.2d 1 , the Illinois Supreme Court held that the imposition of ROTA upon an importer engaged in the business of selling imported goods to Illinois customers violated the import-export clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art.

1987A reading of Michelin and Department of Revenue v. Association of Washington Stevedoring Cos. (1978), 435 U.S. 734 , 55 L.

1987A reading of Michelin and Department of Revenue v. Association of Washington Stevedoring Cos. (1978), 435 U.S. 734 , 55 L.

1987Ed. 2d 495 , 96 S. Ct. 535 , expressly rejected the rationale employed in Miehle and adopted in its place an entirely new analysis for determining whether a State tax violates the import-export clause.

1987Ed. 2d 495, 509 , 96 S. Ct. 535, 546 ), and we find it unpersuasive as support for the taxpayer’s argument that the goods here are “in transit” within the meaning of the import-export clause.

1974Beam Distilling Co. (1964), 377 U.S. 341 , 12 L.

1974Beam Distilling Co. (1964), 377 U.S. 341 , 12 L.

1971In this transaction Caterpillar was both the importer and the user of the equipment, and the trial court noted that under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States goods imported for use are exempt from State taxation “until they are sold, removed from the original package, or put to the use for which they are intended.” (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945), 324 U.S. 652 , 89 L.

1971In this transaction Caterpillar was both the importer and the user of the equipment, and the trial court noted that under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States goods imported for use are exempt from State taxation “until they are sold, removed from the original package, or put to the use for which they are intended.” (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945), 324 U.S. 652 , 89 L.

1971(Thorpe v. Mahin (1969), 43 Ill.2d 36 ; Klein v. Hulman (1966), 34 Ill.2d 343 .) We think it is clear that a class which is drawn to prevent an artificial interpretation of the import-export clause from affording imported goods an unintended competitive advantage does not violate the uniformity clause simply because the use tax on imported articles is imposed at a later time than the tax is imposed on non-imported articles.

1971(Thorpe v. Mahin (1969), 43 Ill.2d 36 ; Klein v. Hulman (1966), 34 Ill.2d 343 .) We think it is clear that a class which is drawn to prevent an artificial interpretation of the import-export clause from affording imported goods an unintended competitive advantage does not violate the uniformity clause simply because the use tax on imported articles is imposed at a later time than the tax is imposed on non-imported articles.

1960The defendant lays great stress on the recent opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 534 , 3 L. ed. 2d 490, (consolidated with United States Plywood Corp. v. City of Algoma,) and seems to suggest that the Supreme Court has adopted a new construction for the import-export clause.