| 词条 | Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady |ArgueDate=January 19 |ArgueYear=1977 |DecideDate=March 7 |DecideYear=1977 |FullName=Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, Chairman, Mississippi Tax Commission |USVol=430 |USPage=274 |ParallelCitations=97 S. Ct. 1076; 51 L. Ed. 2d 326; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 56 |Prior=Certiorari from the Supreme Court of Mississippi |Subsequent= |Holding= A privilege tax, when used in conjunction with the "four-prong" test, does not discourage interstate commerce. |SCOTUS=1975-1981 |Majority=Blackmun |JoinMajority=unanimous |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 |Overturned previous case = Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951) }} Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax. BackgroundComplete Auto was an auto transporter involved in moving General Motors vehicles from the railhead at Jackson, Mississippi to dealerships in Mississippi. The Mississippi State Tax Commission levied a tax upon Complete Auto "for the privilege of engaging or continuing in business or doing business"[1] in the state of Mississippi. The Court refers to the tax as a "sales tax"; however, it was a "transaction privilege" or gross receipts tax based on Complete Auto's gross receipts. ArgumentsComplete Auto argued against the constitutionality of tax, stating that they were part of an interstate operation, involved in transporting vehicles from the factories in Michigan to the dealers in Mississippi.[1] According to Complete Auto, taxation on interstate operations not only discourages interstate commerce but also is a violation of the Commerce Clause. RulingThe Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mississippi. The ruling established a four-prong test for constitutionality of a tax under the Commerce Clause:[2]
Even though Complete Auto asserted that it was a part of an interstate operation, the Court agreed with Mississippi that while operating within the state, it was afforded services, such as police protection, provided for by taxation. Subsequent developmentsThe test enunciated in Complete Auto Transit received significant interpretation in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981).[4] References1. ^1 2 3 4 {{ussc|name=Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady|volume=430|page=274|pin=|year=1977}}. {{usgovpd}} 2. ^1 {{cite web|url=http://www.revenue.state.az.us/Audit/nexus.asp|title=Arizona Department of Revenue NEXUS UNIT |publisher=Arizona Department of Revenue |accessdate=2008-10-01}} 3. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.sutherland.com/file_upload/LegalAlertTexasFranchiseTaxThrowbackApportionmentProvisionAugust32005.pdf|title=Texas Franchise Tax Throwback Apportionment Provision Violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution|publisher=Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP|accessdate=2008-10-01}} 4. ^Raabe, William A.; Whittenburg, Gerald E.; and Sanders, Debra L. Federal Tax Research. 8th ed. Florence, Ky.: Cengage Learning, 2008. {{ISBN|0-324-65965-2}} External links
| case = Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, {{ussc|430|274|1977|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109615/complete-auto-transit-inc-v-brady/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/430/274.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13484408162170408611 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/us/430/274/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430274/usrep430274.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-29 6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law|United States taxation and revenue case law|1977 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。