Recommended Posts

Maryland’s income tax scheme fails the internal con­sistency test.
A simple example illustrates the point.Assume that every State imposed the following taxes,
which are similar to Maryland’s “county” and “special nonresident” taxes: (1) a 1.25% tax on income that resi­
dents earn in State, (2) a 1.25% tax on income that resi­dents earn in other jurisdictions, and (3) a 1.25% tax on
income that nonresidents earn in State. Assume further that two taxpayers, April and Bob, both live in State A,
but that April earns her income in State A whereas Bob earns his income in State B. In this circumstance, Bob will pay more income tax than April solely because he earns income interstate. Specifically, April will have to
pay a 1.25% tax only once, to State A. But Bob will have to pay a 1.25% tax twice: once to State A, where he re­
sides, and once to State B, where he earns the income.

Critically—and this dispels a central argument made by petitioner and the principal dissent—the Maryland
scheme’s discriminatory treatment of interstate commerce is not simply the result of its interaction with the taxing
schemes of other States. Instead, the internal consistency test reveals what the undisputed economic analysis shows:

Maryland’s tax scheme is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff. See Brief for Tax Economists 4, 9;
Brief for Knoll & Mason 2. This identity between Mary­land’s tax and a tariff is fatal because tariffs are “[t]he
paradigmatic example of a law discriminating against interstate commerce.”
West Lynn , 512 U. S., at 193

Indeed, when asked about the foregoing analysis made by amici Tax Economists and Knoll & Mason, counsel for
Maryland responded, “I don’t dispute the mathematics. They lose me when they switch from tariffs to income
taxes.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. But Maryland has offered no reason why our analysis should change because we deal
with an income tax rather than a formal tariff, and we see none. After all, “tariffs against the products of other
States are so patently unconstitutional that our cases reveal not a single attempt by any State to enact one.
Instead, the cases are filled with state laws that aspire to reap some of the benefits of tariffs by other means.”
West Lynn, supra , at 193.

Fascinating case.

Rarely will you find Scalia and Thomas dissenting and Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsburg also dissenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzzi... that's funny, Adam. :laugh:


What's funny is I would rather have the above lady than the ACLU Board of Director member below:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now