Meadwestvaco Corporation, Successor in Interest to the Mead Corporation v. Illinois Department of Revenue et al (553 U.S. 16)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 15, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 553 U.S. 16 · 128 S. Ct. 1498
- Decided
- April 15, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. The Due Process and Commerce Clauses forbid the States to tax “‘extraterritorial values.’” Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U. S. 159,164 (1983); see also Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 504 U. S. 768, 777 (1992); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt, 445 U. S. 425, 441-442 (1980). A State may, however, tax an apportioned share of the value generated by the intrastate and extrastate activities of a multistate enterprise if those activities form part of a “‘unitary business.’” Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 528 U. S. 458, 460 (2000); Mobil Oil Corp., supra, at 438. We have been asked in this case to decide whether the State of Illinois constitutionally taxed an apportioned share of the capital gain realized by an out-of-state corporation on the sale of one of its business divisions. The Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the tax and affirmed a judgment in the State’s favor. Because we conclude that the state courts misapprehended the principles that we have developed for determining whether a multistate business is unitary, we vacate the decision of the Appellate Court of Illinois. I A Mead Corporation (Mead), an Ohio corporation, is the predecessor in interest and a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner MeadWestvaco Corporation. From its founding in 1846, Mead…
Excerpt of a 27,119-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.