STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH
v.
PACIFIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Utah's tax commission imposed a sales tax on a Nevada corporation's sales of cast-iron pipe manufactured in Utah, where title passed and delivery occurred at the manufacturer's foundry, even though the goods were destined for out-of-state delivery. The Supreme Court reversed the Utah Supreme Court's decision invalidating the tax, holding that a state may impose a sales tax on goods where title and delivery occur within the state, regardless of the goods' ultimate out-of-state destination.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Respondent, a Nevada corporation qualified to do business in Utah, manufactures cast-iron pipe and related items in Provo, Utah, and sells its products throughout the Western States. Prices set by respondent are for the goods delivered at a specific job site, and interstate delivery is usually made by common carrier or in respondent’s own equipment. The sales here involved occurred in a different manner. In each case the material was manufactured to meet the specifications of specific out-of-state jobs. The contract called for out-of-state shipment, and respondent set a destination price which included the going common carrier freight charges between the two points involved. But delivery was made and title passed to the purchaser at respondent’s foundry-in Provo. The purchaser then transported the pipe with its own equipment to the predetermined out-of-state destination. The common carrier tariff was credited to the purchaser. The Utah Tax Commission imposed upon respondent a sales tax deficiency covering these sales.
The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the Tax Commission, on the grounds that the certainty of interstate shipment made the imposition of the tax on these shipments unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. 13 Utah 2d 113, 369 P. 2d 123. We reverse its judgment on the authority of International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340, 345, which holds on facts close to those of this case that a State may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the State.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TA Operating Corp. v. State, 767 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…e preceded the sale or might occur in the future.” Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. at 186, 115 S.Ct. 1331. That title passed in Florida as the fuel was pumped in Florida made this a Florida sale. See State Tax Comm’n v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605, 606, 83 S.Ct. 925, 10 L.Ed.2d 8 (1963) (“[A] State may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the State.”); Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. at 53-54, 60 S.Ct. 388. The partie…1 / 2
-
Linder Indus. Mach. Co. v. Berry, 385 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…he passing of title, was a step in the process of exportation.3 If delivery occurs within the taxing [*747] state, a tax on the transaction will ordinarily be upheld. For example, in State Tax Commission of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605, 83 S.Ct. 925, 10 L.Ed.2d 8 (1963), a corporation manufactured pipe in Utah to meet specifications for specific out-of-state jobs. Although the contract called for shipment out of state and the sales price included freight charges, the Supreme Court…
-
Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1995)…ds either immediately before, or after, the transfer of ownership. See, e. g., Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1 (1986) (upholding sales tax on airplane fuel); State Tax Common of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U. S. 605 (1963) (per curiam) (upholding tax on sale that contemplated purchaser’s interstate shipment of goods immediately after sale). The sale, we held, was “an activity which ... is subject to the state taxing power” so long as taxation did not “discrim…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Harvester Co. v. Dep't of Treas., 322 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1944)