首页> 外文OA文献 >Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages: Enhanced State Power to Tax Imports
【2h】

Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages: Enhanced State Power to Tax Imports

机译:米其林轮胎公司诉工资:增强国家对进口商品征税的权力

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, the Supreme Court abandoned a century of precedent in holding that the Import-Export Clause does not bar a state from imposing a nondiscriminatory ad valorem property tax on imported goods. The provision forbidding the states from laying \u22any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports\u22 was never intended to prohibit such a levy, the Court now tells us, and the case first suggesting that it did, Low v. Austin, was \u22wrong decided.\u22 Over a mild protest of Mr. Justice White, the Court thus obviated any examination of the principal issue the parties had briefed: whether Michelin\u27s tires, while sitting in a warehouse in Gwinnett County, Georgia, had retained their \u22distinctive character\u22 as imports and, consequently, their immunity from state taxation.Although the Court\u27s confession of error apparently spared us a discourse on the \u22original package\u22 doctrine, it could hardly fail to raise a number of questions. Some are historical. Are we assured that the Court, now fortified by \u22scholarly analysis,\u22 is correct in its confident assertion that \u22[n]othing in the history of the Import-Export Clause even remotely suggests that a nondiscriminatory ad valorem property tax which is also imposed on imported goods that are no longer in import transit was the type of exaction that was regarded as objectionable by the Framers\u22? Others are jurisprudential. Was there any \u22reason\u22 or \u22necessity\u22 to overrule Low v. Austin since, as Mr. Justice White remarked, \u22None of the parties has challenged that case here, and the issue of its overruling has not been briefed or argued\u22? And still others are of immediate practical importance. In delimiting the power of states to tax imports, should we continue to ask, \u22When does an import cease to be an import?\u22 or should we address other issues instead? Extended consideration of each of these questions may be warranted, but it is toward the last area of inquiry that this article is primarily directed.
机译:在《米其林轮胎公司诉工资》一案中,最高法院放弃了一个世纪的先例,认为《进出口条款》并没有禁止一个州对进口商品征收非歧视性的从价财产税。法院现在告诉我们,该条款禁止各州对进口或出口征收任何进口或出口税,这从来就不是要禁止征收此类税款,该案首先表明,Low v。Austin确实这样做是错误的经对怀特法官的温和抗议,法院因此避免了对当事方所通报的主要问题的任何审查:米其林的轮胎是否坐在佐治亚州格温内特县的一个仓库中而保留了他们的轮胎。尽管作为法院的认罪显然使我们免于对“一揽子原始包装”学说的讨论,但它很难引起许多问题。有些是历史性的。我们是否可以确定,现在通过\ u22scholarly分析得到加强的法院\ u22在其自信的断言中是正确的,即进出口法律的历史中甚至还遥遥地暗示着非歧视性的从价财产税是还对不再进入进口过境的进口商品强加了“制宪者”认为反对的扣款类型?其他人是法学的。正如怀特法官所说,是否有任何理由推翻Low诉奥斯丁案,因为没有任何一方在这里对这一案件提出异议,并且没有就其否决问题作过简要介绍或争论。 \ u22?还有其他一些具有实际的实际重要性。在划定国家对进口商品征税的权力时,我们应该继续问:什么时候进口不再是进口商品?还是应该解决其他问题?可能需要对每个问题进行扩展的考虑,但是本文主要针对的是最后一个查询领域。

著录项

  • 作者

    Hellerstein, Walter;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1976
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号