| Venue: |
SCOTUS
|
|
| Facts: |
Montana applies a big severance tax on mineral production (low-sulphur
coal, esp.). |
|
| Posture: |
Suit in MT court; probably not a success there... |
|
| Issue: |
Does this tax violate the commerce clause? |
|
| Holding: |
No. |
|
| Rule: |
The Complete Auto Transit test: a tax is ok if it:
- Is applied to an activity with substantial nexus to the taxing
state
- Is fairly apportioned
- Does not discriminate against interstate commerce
- Is fairly related to services provided by the state
|
|
| Reasoning: |
The plaintiffs/appellants don't argue the first two prongs (tactical
error). The tax is not discriminatory, in the sense that MT
consumers must also pay it: MT is not to blame if most customers
are from out of state. The court doesn't involve itself in
questions of whether state tax rates are
reasonable, so that can't be the sense of #4-- instead, it's
obvious that this tax is directly proportional to the
consumption of the taxed thing. The rate of a tax is a matter
for the legislature. |
|
| Dicta: |
Dissent: hey, most of this coal comes from federally-owned land. |
|