Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Supreme Court Invalidates Maryland's Personal Income Tax Structure: Lack of a State Tax Credit for a 'County' Tax Is Held to Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause

Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Supreme Court Invalidates Maryland's Personal Income Tax Structure: Lack of a State Tax Credit for a 'County' Tax Is Held to Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause

Article excerpt

The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that Maryland's personal income tax regime violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it results in double taxation of income earned in interstate commerce, amounting to an impermissible state tariff, and thus discriminates against interstate commerce.

Facts: Maryland imposes two state personal income taxes on taxpayers living or doing business in the state--one is designated a state income tax, and the other is designated a "county" tax (slip op. at 2). The state gives taxpayers a credit against the "state" income tax for state taxes paid to other states but does not give a credit against the "county" income tax, which can result in double taxation of out-of-state income.

The taxpayers in the case, Brian and Karen Wynne, are Maryland residents. The Wynnes, who owned stock in an S corporation that did business in 39 states, claimed a credit on their joint 2006 Maryland return for state income taxes paid to other states. The Comptroller of Maryland allowed the Wynnes a credit against their Maryland state income tax but not against their county income tax and assessed a tax deficiency against the Wynnes.

The Hearing and Appeals Section of the Maryland Comptroller's office affirmed the assessment, as did the Maryland Tax Court; but a state circuit court reversed that holding, and its decision was upheld by the state appeals court, on the grounds that Maryland's tax regime violates the Commerce Clause (slip op. at 3).

Issues: In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court explained that the dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from discriminating against interstate commerce. Thus, a state cannot tax interstate transactions more heavily than intrastate transactions or impose a tax that discriminates against interstate commerce by providing a direct commercial advantage to local businesses or by subjecting interstate commerce to multiple taxation. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.