The export clause (art. I, § 9, sentence 5) prohibits the federal government from levying “taxes or duties”. on items exported from any country. The clause was proposed by the southern states, which feared that the northern states would control Congress and bring the federal government a disproportionate amount of revenue for the federal government through export taxes. [11] U.S. International Trade Commission, Tariffs on U.S. Imports, March 2016 It sounds terrible. Taxing exports makes no sense, and we should stop it immediately. In Brown v. Maryland, Marshall C.J.
noted the applicability of the import-export clause to interstate trade, noting that “we assume that the principles established in this case also apply to imports from a sister state.” [17]: 449 [5]: 526-527 In 1860, Chief Justice Taney, who represented Maryland in Brown v. Maryland, wrote the Supreme Court`s opinion in Almy v. California, which found that a tax on a bill of lading for gold dust exported from California to New York violated the import and export clause. [18] “We believe that this case is not that of Brown v. Maryland”[18]: 173 he wrote and concluded that “the state tax in question is a tax on the export of gold and silver and therefore violates the [import-export clause].” [18]: 175 A state law requiring importers to obtain a licence to sell imported goods amounts to an indirect import tax and is therefore unconstitutional.11 Footnote Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419, 447 (1827). Similarly, a franchise tax on foreign companies that import nitrate and sell it in the original packaging, 12 FootnoteAnglo-Chilean Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U.S.
218 (1933). a tax on broker sales13 FootnoteLow v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29, 33 (1872). and auctioneers14 footnoteCook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U.S. 566, 573 (1878). goods imported in their original packaging and a tax on the sale of goods in foreign trade, consisting of an annual royalty plus a percentage of gross sales,15 FootnoteCrew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U.S.
292 (1917). were declared disabled. On the other hand, pilotage fees,16 footnoteCooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, 313 (1851). a tax on a buyer`s gross sales from the importer,17 FootnoteWaring v. The Mayor, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 110, 122 (1869). See also Pervear v. Massachusetts.
72 U.S. (5 wall.) 475, 478 (1867); Schollenberger vs. Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1, 24 (1898). a licence fee on the fish trade that has lost its distinctiveness as an import by processing, handling and sale,18 FootnoteGulf Fisheries Co. v. MacInerney, 276 U.S. 124 (1928). an annual fee for individuals who buy and sell foreign tickets,19 FootnoteNathan v. Louisiana, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 73, 81 (1850).
and a tax on the right of an alien to receive property as the heir, legatee or beneficiary of a deceased person20 FootnoteMager v. Grima, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 490 (1850). were not considered customs duties on imports or exports. Repealed a number of earlier decisions that it considered to be the wording of Brown v. In Maryland, the Court now concludes that the clause does not prevent a state from imposing a non-discriminatory ad valorem property tax on goods that are no longer in transit imported.21 FootnoteMichelin Tire Corp. v. Löhne, 423 U.S.
276 (1976), on Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 (1872), explicitly, and necessarily Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), among others. The latter case was expressly set aside in Limbach v Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984), which concerned the same tax and the same parties. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Bowers, 358 USA 534 (1959), property taxes were upheld on the ground that the taxed materials had lost their import character. For exports, see Selliger v.
Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200 (1909) (property tax on storage receipts for whiskey exported to Germany is not valid). See also Itel Containers Int`l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60, 76–78 (1993), and see id. at 81–82 (Scalia J. agreed). For example, a company`s stock of imported tires stored in its distribution warehouse could be included in the state tax on the entire inventory. The clause does not prohibit any “tax” that has any bearing on imports or exports, but raises claims directed solely against imports or exports or commercial activities as such.22 FootnoteMichelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S.
276, 290–94 (1976). Agreement, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham County, 479 U.S. 130 (1986) (tax on imported tobacco stored for maturation in customs warehouses and intended for domestic production and sale); see Xerox Corp. v. County of Harris, 459 U.S. 145, 154 (1982) (a similar tax on goods stored in bonded warehouses is anticipated “by the full regulation of tariffs by Congress”; however, the case concerned goods stored for export).
Here`s the problem, as the house describes in a fact sheet: “Under our current broken tax code, U.S. companies pay a tax when they export products, but not when they import products. To avoid paying this export tax, U.S. companies are moving jobs, research, and headquarters abroad. “Just one problem: this tax doesn`t exist. The United States does not and has never taxed exports. The trade clause, which gives Congress the power to “regulate trade with foreign nations, between states, and with Native American tribes,” complements the congressional authority given in the import-export clause. Following Michelin`s interpretation of the import-export clause, the U.S. Supreme Court considered its application of the dormant trade clause doctrine in Complete Auto Transit, Inc.
v. Brady, who referred to interstate trade and introduced a four-tier test in which a tax is valid if it is “applied to an activity substantially related to the tax state, is fairly distributed, does not discriminate against interstate trade, and is proportionate to the services provided by the state.” [14] In Japan Line, Ltd.