Graphic Packaging Corporation V. Susan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NO. 03-14-00197-CV _________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN _____________________________ GRAPHIC PACKAGING, INC., Appellant v. SUSAN COMBS, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees __________________________________________________________________ FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-003038, THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE PRESIDING _________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL ________________________________________________________________ Joe Huddleston Executive Director Sheldon Laskin Counsel 444 N. Capitol St., N.W., Ste. 425 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-650-0300 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ...................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................4 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................14 I. Articles III.1 and IV of the Multistate Tax Compact do not prevent the Texas legislature from requiring the use of a receipts factor to apportion the franchise margin base because the Compact is not a binding interstate compact, but is instead an advisory compact containing a uniform law. ............................................ 14 A. The Multistate Tax Compact has none of the indicia of a binding interstate compact. ................................................................. 17 (1) The Compact does not contain a requirement of reciprocation. (2) The Compact does not establish a joint regulatory body. ........................................................................................... 22 (3) The Compact does not prohibit unilateral modification or repeal. ............................................................... 24 B. The Compact is an advisory compact incorporating into Article IV, and by extension Article III.1, a uniform law. ...................................................................................................... 26 II. Even if the Compact were a binding compact, its terms do not prohibit modification of Article III.1 or IV and therefore this Court must look to the compact member states’ course of conduct in determining whether the Compact allows modification of those apportionment provisions. .......................................... 31 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................37 APPENDIX i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alabama v. North Carolina, 130 S.Ct. 2295 (2010) ................................................................................... 32, 33 Com. of Penn. v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. 518 (1851) ...............................................................................................14 Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, 135 S.Ct. 1787 (2015) ..........................................................................................21 Emco Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Case No. 12- 000152- MT (Mich. Ct. Cl. April 21, 2015) ..................................30 Ex parte Ervin, 187 SW 3d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ..............................................................25 In re Myrick, 624 A.2d 1222 (D.C. 1993) ..................................................................................19 Ingram Micro, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, Case No. 11- 000035- MT (Mich. Ct. Cl. December 19, 2014) ..........................30 International Shoe Co. v. Fonternot, 359 U.S. 984 (1959) ...............................................................................................7 Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 852 NW 2d 865 (Mich. 2014) ....................................................................... 13, 15 Lane v. Travelers Indem. Co., 391 SW 2d 399 (Tex. 1965) .................................................................................25 McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 15, 19 Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267 (1978) ...................................................................................... 12, 21 ii Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 105 S. Ct. 1441 (1985) .........................................................................................11 Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159 (1985) .................................................................................... passim New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (2008) ...................................................................................... 20, 33 Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959) ...............................................................................................6 Oklahoma Tax Com’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995) ...............................................................................................7 Phillips v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 80 A.3d 561 (Pa. 2013) ........................................................................................19 Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960) ...............................................................................................8 Seattle Master Builders Ass’n v. Pac. Nw. Elec. Power & Conservation Planning Council, 786 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986) ..............................................................................17 Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 133 S.Ct. 2120 (2013) ............................................................................. 20, 26, 34 U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978) ..................................................................................... passim Yaskawa America, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, Case No. 11-000077-MT (Mich. Ct. Cl. December 19, 2014) ............................30 Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Rules U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 3 ....................................................................................18 U.S. Const., art. I, § 10 .............................................................................................15 iii Tex. Const. art. I, § 16..............................................................................................15 Pub. L. No. 86-272, 73 Stat. 555 (1959) ..................................................................................... 7, 9, 10 ALA. CODE § 434 40-27-1 .........................................................................................36 ARK. CODE ANN. § 26-5-101 ....................................................................................36 CAL. REV. & TAX CODE § 25128(a) .........................................................................36 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-22-303 ................................................................................35 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 63-3027(i) ...............................................................................36 MICH. COMP. LAWS § 205.581 .................................................................................35 MINN. STAT. § 290.171 .............................................................................................35 MO. REV. STAT. § 32.200 .................................................................................. 14, 36 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.606 ........................................................................................36 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 1.303 ............................................................. 32, 33 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 161.01 .............................................................................28 TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 162.102 .............................................................................19 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 612.001 .......................................................19 TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 141.001 ................................................................................1 TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 523.001 .......................................................................19 UTAH CODE ANN. § 59-1-801.IV.9 ..........................................................................36 Other Authorities 2013 Or. Laws Ch. 407 ............................................................................................13 iv 2013 Utah Laws, Ch. 462 ........................................................................................13 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission in United States Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, United States Supreme Court No. 76-635, 1977 WL 189138 .............................27 Bylaws of the Multistate Tax Commission, Bylaw 7: Hearings and Procedures for Uniformity Recommendations, http://www.mtc.gov/The-Commission/Bylaws ..................................................... 3 CA Stats. 2012, c. 37 (S.B.1015), § 3 ......................................................................36 Caroline N. Broun, Michael L. Buenger, Michael