Harlan F. Stone

“ The Constitution contemplates that Congress alone shall provide for necessary national uniformity in rules governing foreign and interstate commerce. [18] Rules to further free trade among the States by apportionment or division of taxes on such commerce, are regulations. Both the necessity for such a rule, and the determination and enactment of a regulation to put it into effect, call for facilities and powers possessed neither by a State nor by the courts. ”

“ It might appear to Congress that the adoption of a rule against State taxes measured by interstate commerce gross receipts would deprive the States of a potent weapon useful in preventing evasion of State taxes.
This Court's rule would permit Washington to tax appellant's net income. But determination and collection of taxes on net incomes are often very difficult because corporate profits and income may be isolated or hidden by accounting methods, holding companies and intercorporate dealings. ”

“ Congress may find that to shelter interstate commerce in a tax exempt refuge-in the manner of the judgment here-is to grant that commerce a privileged status over intra-state business, contrary to the national welfare. ”

“ The exemption of interstate business from the type of State taxation here involved is now made complete.
A business engaging in activities in two or more States should bear its part of the tax burdens of each. If valid, non-discriminatory taxes imposed in these States create 'multiple' burdens, such 'burdens' result from the political subdivisions created by our form of government. They are the price paid for governmental protection and maintenance in all States where the taxpayer does business. ”

“ A broad and deliberate legislative investigation-which no Court can make-may indicate to Congress that a wise policy for the national economy demands that each State in which an interstate business operates be permitted to apply a non-discrimi natory tax to the gross receipts of that business either because of its size and volume or partially to offset the tendency toward centralization of the nation's business. ”

“ While appellant is engaged in business within the state, and the state courts have sustained the tax as laid on its activities there, the interstate commerce service which it renders and for which the taxed compensation is paid is not wholly performed within the state. A substantial part of it is outside the state where sales are negotiated and written contracts of sale are executed, and where deliveries and collections are made. ”

“ Here the tax, measured by the entire volume of the interstate commerce in which appellant participates, is not apportioned to its activities within the state. If Washington is free to exact such a tax, other states to which the commerce extends may, with equal right, lay a tax similarly measured for the privilege of conducting within their respective territorial limits the activities there which contribute to the service. ”

“ The Washington excise tax is measured by appellant's gross income-received in Washington-and earned solely by selling apples grown in and shipped from that State. [8]
No other State in which appellant's agents perform sales services has imposed a similar tax upon appellant measured by any part of its gross receipts. Such an eventually-if it should occur is given the title of 'multiple taxation.' And such conjectured 'multiple taxation' would be-it is said-a violation of that Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate commerce among the States. ”

“ Legislative inquiry might disclose to Congress that the speculative danger of injury to interstate commerce is more than offset by the certain injury to result from depriving States of a practical method of taxation. ”

“ Any other State's tax on appellant which directly discriminates against interstate commerce, could not (together with Washington's tax) create a 'multiple burden.' This is so, because such a discriminatory tax law, standing alone, would be held to violate the Commerce Clause. [11] Every State has the right to utilize gross receipts as the measure of taxes which it has the power to impose. ”

“ A State legislature attempting to put upon interstate business its apportioned share of the burden of taxation is 'faced with the impossibility of allocating specifically the profits earned by the processes conducted within' the borders of the State. [19] If an 'apportionment' between States of taxes on interstate business is to be made, it cannot be accomplished without national inquiry and national action. ”

“ Intercorporate relations may assume 'their rather cumbersome and involved nature for the purpose of evading (a State) * * * tax' on income and to 'remove income from the state though still creating it within the state.' [14] Even 'profits themselves are not susceptible of ascertainment with certainty and precision except as a result of inquiries too minute to be practicable.' [15]
Congress might conclude that the States should not be prohibited from utilizing nondiscriminatory gross receipts taxes for State revenues, because there are 'justifications for the gross receipts tax. ”

“ Only a comprehensive survey and investigation of the entire national economy-which Congress alone has power and facilities to make-can indicate the need for, as well as justify, restricting the taxing power of a State so as to provide against conjectured taxation by more than one State on identical income. ”

“ The intended equality of the statute will become unequality by the judgment of this Court here, because appellant and all other businesses in Washington that receive income for selling Washington products in that and other States, are exempted from the tax. Appellant is exempted from past, present and future payments of this tax. Not so, however, as to past, present, or future payments by Washington businesses selling only to citizens of that State. They must bear the entire burden of the tax. ”

“ With reference to the possible invalidity of another phase of this same Washington tax program by reason of conjectured future taxes of other States, this Court has said: [10] 'A state, for many purposes, is to be reckoned as a self-contained unit, which may frame its own system of burdens and exemptions without heeding systems elsewhere. If there are limits to that power, there is no need to mark them now. ”

“ The Supreme Court of Washington, conceding that the shipment of the fruit from the state of origin to points outside, and its sale there, involve interstate commerce, held nevertheless that appellant's activities in Washington in promoting the commerce were a local business, subject to state taxation as is other business carried on in the state, and it sustained the present levy, against attack under the commerce clause, as a tax upon those activities, citing Ficklen v. ”

“ In the course of the business the fruit is shipped from the states of origin-approximately 25% from Oregon-to other states and foreign countries, sometimes directly to the purchasers, but more often it is consigned to appellant at extra-state points from which it is diverted by appellant to purchasers who buy the fruit while in transit, or where it is stored pending sale. ”

“ Its entire business is that of marketing agent for fruit growers and growers' cooperative organizations in those states. As such it makes sales and deliveries of the fruit in other states and in foreign countries, collects the sales prices and remits the proceeds to its principals after deducting transportation charges, certain expense allowances and its own compensation. ”

“ Adams Manufacturing Co. v. Storen, supra, pages 310, 311, 58 S.Ct. at page 915; cf. Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U.S. 230, 7 S.Ct. 857, 30 L.Ed. 888; Philadelphia & Southern M.S.S.C.o. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 7 S.Ct. 1118, 30 L.Ed. 1200; Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. ”