Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/169/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:01:05+00:00

Document:
other property within its jurisdiction; the tax may be laid on the property itself or upon the sale and delivery of it. P. 294 U. S. 175.
2. A state tax on distributors of gasoline of so much per gallon sold is not repugnant to the commerce clause as applied to a case where the vendor, under local contracts for sale of gasoline in tank car original packages, to be delivered to the purchasers locally on their rail sidings, was at liberty to take it from local or from outside source, and chose to consign it to the purchasers from another State. P. 294 U. S. 174.
3. In such a case, the interstate transportation is merely incidental, and the burden on interstate commerce, if any, is indirect. P. 294 U. S. 175.
316 Pa. 33, 173 A. 404, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment affirming a recovery by the State in an action to collect a tax. See 37 Dauphin Co.Rep. 63.
This case, coming before the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County upon the appeal of the company from determinations of state taxing authorities, is an action by the commonwealth against appellant to recover a tax under § 4 of the Liquid Fuels Tax Act of 1931. P.L. 149. By that act, a tax of three cents a gallon is imposed "upon all liquid fuels used or sold and delivered by distributors within this Commonwealth," and distributors are made liable for the payment of the tax. They may add the amount of the tax to the price, and are required on all delivery slips or bills to "state the rate of the tax separately from the price of the liquid fuels." Appellant maintained below, and it insists here, that, construed to impose the tax in question, the statute is repugnant to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The trial court held otherwise, and gave judgment for the amount claimed. The Supreme Court affirmed. 316 Pa. 33, 173 A. 404.
tax in controversy was laid at three cents per gallon upon the contents of 13 tank cars sold and delivered by it. All were ordered through its agent in Philadelphia for delivery to purchasers at that city or at Essington, Pa. The orders specified a price per gallon "f.o.b. Wilmington, Del., plus 3¢ tax," and were subject to, and received, appellant's approval at its office in Pittsburgh. The purchasers were not licensed or taxable as distributors. All fuels delivered under these contracts were obtained from Crane Hook Company of Wilmington, Delaware, and, on the order of appellant, were shipped by rail from there to the purchasers in Philadelphia or Essington. Each car moved on a bill of lading in which the appellant was consignor and the purchaser was consignee; the place of shipment indicated was Wilmington, and the place of destination was consignee's private siding in Philadelphia or Essington. Appellant prepared and sent to the buyer an invoice covering each shipment showing the price as stated in the order.
of shipment. The reference to the tax in the orders and invoices would have been unnecessary if delivery were not to be made in Pennsylvania, for, if made at Wilmington, the transactions would not have been within the provision of the taxing act. Upon these considerations, the state Supreme Court held that the liquid fuels in question were by appellant "sold and delivered" to purchasers in Pennsylvania. And see Dannemiller v. Kirkpatrick, 201 Pa. 218, 224, 50 A. 928; Frank Pure Food Co. v. Dodson, 281 Pa. 125, 126 A. 243; Charles E. Hires Co. v. Stromeyer, 65 Pa.Super. 241, 243. The ruling is not challenged by appellant, and is binding upon it here.
liquid fuel transported by rail or truck from Pennsylvania sources to places of delivery in that state over any route not wholly therein.
Our decisions show that, if goods carried from one state have reached destination in another where they are held in original packages for sale, the latter has power without discrimination to tax them as it does other property within its jurisdiction. Woodruff v. Parham, supra; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 114 U. S. 632; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 192 U. S. 519-522; Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506. And as that rule applies whether the burden falls directly or indirectly (Banker Bros. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U. S. 210), it is not material whether the tax is upon the sale and delivery or upon the property. Admittedly the sales contracts were made in Pennsylvania. Deliveries to purchasers at destination were made in accordance with the terms of the sales. As interstate transportation was not required or contemplated, it may be deemed as merely incidental. Cf. Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, 270 U. S. 604; Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U. S. 405, 209 U. S. 412-413. The act lays no burden on interstate commerce as such, and, if any can be said to result from the imposition, it is indirect, and precisely as that which would have resulted if deliveries had been made exclusively by intrastate transportation from Pennsylvania sources. We need not consider whether deliveries to purchasers ended the interstate commerce involved, including all incidents that in other connections might constitute an essential part of that which is covered by the commerce clause. Cf. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Pacific Paper Assn., 273 U. S. 52, 273 U. S. 63. Upon the principle applied here recently in Minnesota v. Biasius, 290 U. S. 1, the liquid fuels were taxable in Pennsylvania.

References: § 4
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.