Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Ficklen v. Taxing District of Shelby County…

No doubt can be entertained of the right of a state legislature to tax trades, professions, and occupations, in the absence of inhibition in the state constitution in that regard, and where a resident citizen engages in general business subject to a particular tax the fact that the business done chances to consist, for the time being, wholly or partially in negotiating sales between resident and nonresident merchants of goods situated in another state does not necessarily involve the taxation of interstate commerce, forbidden by the constitution.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Ficklen v. Taxing District of Shelby County…

It was held that the reference by the statute to the transportation receipts, and to a certain percentage of the same, in determining the amount of the excise tax, was simply to ascertain the value of the business done by the corporation, and thus obtain a guide to a reasonable conclusion as to the amount of the excise tax which should be levied.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Ficklen v. Taxing District of Shelby County…

It is well settled that a state has power to tax all property having a situs within its limits, whether employed in interstate commerce or not. It is not taxed because it is so employed, but because it is within the territory and jurisdiction of the state. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826.
And it has been often laid down that the property of corporations holding their franchises from the government of the United States is not exempt from taxation by the states of its situs.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature