Supreme Court strikes down Maryland double-tax law,

[Revmitchell]

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Maryland tax that effectively double-taxes residents for income earned in other states -- a decision that could cost Maryland and other states with similar policies hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court that the tax is unconstitutional because it discourages Maryland residents from earning money outside the state.

"Maryland's tax scheme is inherently discriminatory," the justices wrote in the majority opinion. They wrote that the policy effectively discourages "interstate commerce."

The ruling said: "If every State adopted Maryland's tax structure, interstate commerce would be taxed at a higher rate than intrastate commerce."

The ruling could have far-reaching consequences beyond just Maryland. It also could affect similar laws in other states, including New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

At issue in this case is Maryland's treatment of money earned out of state.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/supreme-court-strikes-down-maryland-double-tax-law/

 

[go2church]

From reading the article, this ruling seems to make a lot of sense. I am curious about the reasoning of the four that dissented from the majority. Found this on Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/5-key-takeaways-from-supreme-court-ruling-on-maryland-tax-case/2015/05/18/9ff71a94-fd76-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

 

[Revmitchell]

...In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that nothing in the Constitution prevents more than one state from seeking taxes on the same income.

"In this situation, the Constitution does not prefer one lawful basis for state taxation of a person's income over the other,'' Ginsburg wrote.

Maryland's highest court ruled in 2013 that the tax violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Maryland officials said an adverse ruling could cost local governments in the state $45 million to $50 million annually and warned that Maryland might have to refund up to $120 million in taxes.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102687566

 

[Revmitchell]

.....Scalia also wrote separately to note his longtime opposition to "a judge-invented rule under which judges may set aside state laws that they think impose too much of a burden on interstate commerce." Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say the Commerce Clause cannot be used to strike down a state law.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-strikes-maryland-tax-law-31121573

 

[go2church]

Very interesting. It has the feel of the law trying to catch up with "newer" types of investment income found in tax laws formed in the fifties.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with refunds, rewritten tax code, etc. I don't see those states going quietly into the night on this.

 

[carpro]

Excellent decision!!