Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland

1954 United States Supreme Court case
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland
Argued January 5, 1954
Decided April 5, 1954
Full case nameMiller Brothers Co. v. Maryland
Citations347 U.S. 340 (more)
74 S. Ct. 535; 98 L. Ed. 2d 744; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2277
Case history
PriorMiller Brothers Co. v. State, 201 Md. 535, 95 A.2d 286 (1953); probable jurisdiction noted, Miller Bros. v. Maryland, 346 U.S. 809 (1953).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
MajorityJackson, joined by Reed, Frankfurter, Minton, Burton
DissentDouglas, joined by Warren, Black, Clark

In Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a mail order reseller was not required to collect a use tax unless it had sufficient contact with the state.[1]

Background

Miller Brothers Co. was a store in the state of Delaware that sold merchandise to consumers. It did not accept phone or mail orders, but it solicited and advertised via newspaper, mail, and radio in Delaware. Some of the advertisements would reach Maryland residents, who would sometimes come to the store, make purchases and then return to Maryland. The customers would either take their purchases with them or have them delivered by a common carrier or a truck, owned and operated by Miller Brothers Co.

Maryland levied a tax on its residents on "the use, storage, or consumption" of articles within the state and also required all vendors, regardless of where they were, who sold goods to Maryland residents to collect the use tax. Miller Brothers Co. did not collect it. When the Miller Brothers Co. truck entered Maryland to make a delivery, the state of Maryland seized it.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland found the law valid and that Miller Brothers Co. was liable for the tax.[2] Miller Brothers Co. appealed.

Maryland's tax was a use tax; a 1944 Supreme Court case, McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co.,[3] had ruled that a state could not levy a sales tax on sales made by a merchant in another state.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that imposing tax collection duties on Miller Brothers Co. violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires some "definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property, or transaction it seeks to tax."[4] Residence within the state, doing business or hiring of employees within the state, or the owning of property within the state would all qualify as such a connection.

None of Miller Brothers' activities rose to that level. Maryland residents had to come physically to the Delaware store. Miller Brothers' only contact with Maryland was through "the incidental effects of general advertising."[5] As a result, "the burden of collecting or paying their tax cannot be shifted to a foreign merchant in the absence of some jurisdictional basis not present here."[5] The residents of Maryland were, however, still liable for the use tax, but Miller Brothers Co. was not responsible for collecting it.

See also

References

  1. ^ Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ Miller Brothers Co. v. State, 201 Md. 535, 95 A.2d 286 (1953).
  3. ^ McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327 (1944).
  4. ^ Miller Brothers Co., 347 U.S. at 345.
  5. ^ a b Miller Brothers Co., 347 U.S. at 347.

External links

  • Text of Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954) is available from: CourtListener  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress 
  • v
  • t
  • e
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X