home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The Supreme Court
/
The Supreme Court.iso
/
pc
/
ascii
/
1989
/
89_1106
/
89_1106.c
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1991-02-18
|
2KB
|
39 lines
Subject: 89-1106--CONCUR, TRINOVA CORP. v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF TREASURY
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 89-1106
ATRINOVA CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Bon writ of certiorari to the supreme court of michigan
C[February 19, 1991]
A Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.
B As the Court notes ante, at 24, the Michigan single business tax is not
facially discriminatory. Since I am of the view that this suffices to
comply with the requirements of the Commerce Clause, see Amerada Hess Corp.
v. Director, Div. of Taxation, N.9J. Dept. of Treasury, 490 U.9S. 66, 80
(1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); Tyler Pipe Industries Inc. v.
Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.9S. 232, 265 (1987) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part), I would forgo the additional
Commerce Clause analysis articulated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v.
Brady, 430 U.9S. 274, 279 (1977). Some elements of that analysis, however,
are relevant to the quite separate question whether the tax complies with
the requirements of the Due Process Clause, see Mobil Oil Corp. v.
Commissioner of Taxes of Vt., 445 U.9S. 425, 436-437 (1980); Amerada Hess
Corp., supra, at 80-81 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Trinova
concedes that there is a minimal connection between its interstate
activities and the taxing State, see Mobil, supra; ante, at 12. The only
issue, then, is whether the tax violates the Due Process Clause by taxing
extraterritorial values. For the reasons stated in Parts III-A and III-B
of the Court's opinion, I agree that it does not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------