Charles Evans Hughes

“ Further, as the sole subject of the challenged tax is the income derived from respondent's sales to the Railroad Company there is no occasion for apportionment. The creosoting operations in Ohio, and the income derived from them, were not involved. And the fact that the ties which were sold to the Railroad Company were purchased by respondent through orders given to the Indiana producers from respondent's Marietta office cannot affect the authority of Indiana to tax the receipts from intrastate activities of respondent in its dealings with the Railroad Company. ”

“ Section 2 of the Indiana Taxing Act of 1933, the text of which is set forth in the margin, [1] provides for a tax upon gross income 'derived from sources within the State of Indiana' of all nonresident persons and corporations. The court below (114 F.2d 926) , has held that under this statute the thing taxed was 'the receipt of gross income' and as the income in question was received by respondent in Pennsylvania, it was beyond the jurisdiction of Indiana ”

“ Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is qualified to do business in Indiana but has no agents or employees within that State except as specified. Respondent is engaged in the business of treating railroad ties by creosoting them and also in the business of purchasing and selling ties. It does not, however, sell ties save to those with whom it has a contract for treatment. ”