Amicus Briefs

Amicus Brief Case No. Court Year Title Issue
Alabama Department of Revenue and Julie Magee, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, in Her Official Capacity, Petitioners,
v.
CSX Transportation, Inc., Respondent.
No. 13-553 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2013 Brief of Amicus Curiaeof the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner What is the correct test for “discrimination” under 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.
Allied-Signal, Inc., as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Director, Division of Taxation, Respondent.
No. 91-615 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey 1991 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent on Reargument 1. Should the Court overrule Asarco v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 458 U.S. 307 (1982), and F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Department, 458 U.S. 354 (1982)?

2. If Asarco and Woolworth were overruled, should the decision apply retroactively?

3. If Asarco and Woolworth were overruled, what constitutional principles should govern state taxation of corporations doing business in the several states?
Allied-Signal, Inc., as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Director, Division of Taxation, Respondent.
No. 91-615 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey 1991 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent  Does the unitary business principle permit a nondomiciliary State to tax a multistate corporation on income derived from a minority stock investment, when the investment is integral to the corporation's operational strategies of enhancing the corporation's existing businesses and diversifying into other businesses through the acquisition and divestiture of other corporations?
Associated Industries of Missouri, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Janette M. Lohman, Director of Revenue, et al., Respondents.
No. 93-397 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri 1993 Amicus Curiae Brief of Multistate Tax commission in Support of Respondents Is Missouri's statewide, uniform local government use tax law consistent with the Commerce Clause of the United States where it (i) was not adopted as a measure of "economic protectionism"; (ii) was, in part, enacted in response to the concerns expressed by this Court in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) in an effort to eliminate potential use tax compliance burdens on interstate marketers in 1.573 political subdivisions; (iii) discriminates, if at all, in a de minimis degree against interstate commerce; and (iv) has no other reasonable alternative to solving the State's legitimate interests?
AT&T Corp., Petitioner,
v.
Bobby Gene Allen, et al., Respondent.
No. 03-1046 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals 2004 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of  Petitioner Whether the Oklahoma trial court erred in its finding of jurisdiction to hear a petition and its class certification of a case based on nationwide alleged erroneous collection of municipal taxes.
Barclays Bank, PLC, Petitioner,
v.
Franchise Tax Board, an Agency of the State of California, Respondent.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, Petitioner,
v.
Franchise Tax Board, an Agency of the State of California, Respondent.
Nos. 92-1384 and 92-1839 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of California In and For the Third Appellate District 1993 Amicus Curiae Brief of Multistate Tax commission in Support of Respondent Franchise Tax Board 1. Whether California's application of worldwide combined reporting to determine the taxable income of domestic corporations with foreign parents, or foreign corporations with either foreign parents or foreign subsidiaries, is unconstitutional under the foreign Commerce Clause.

2. Whether California's application of worldwide combined reporting to determine the taxable income of domestic corporations with foreign parents, or foreign corporations with either foreign parents or foreign subsidiaries, intrudes into an unherently federal area and is pre-empted by the United States Constitution.

3. Whether California's application of worldwide combined reporting to determine the taxable income of domestic corporations with foreign parents, or foreign corporations with either foreign parents or foreign subsidiaries, is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause where such application imposes discriminatory compliance burdens on such entities.

4. Whether California's system for compliance with worldwide combined reporting violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution where compliance is not possible without undue cost and the system, to function, depends on discretionary relief provisions without constitutionally sufficient standards to guide application and prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Blue Bell Creameries, LP,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Reagan Farr, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, State of Tennessee,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. M2009-00255-SC-R11-CV Supreme Court Of Tennessee, Middle Section, At Nashville 2009 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission In Support Of Application of Commissioner of Revenue for Permission to Appeal Whether Tennessee was precluded by the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution from imposing an excise tax on recognized capital gains  triggered by the redemption of stock in a holding company.
Capital One Bank and Capital One F.S.B.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Commissioner of Revenue,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. SJC - 10105 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2008 Brief for the Amicus Curiae, Multistate Tax Commission Whether a State's jurisdiction to levy a net income-based tax on the share of a taxpayer's income attributable to the State is limited by the dormant commerce clause to only those taxpayers with a physical presence in the State.
Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Petitioners,
v.
The Dow Chemical Company, Respondent
No. 01-442 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Third Court of Appeals of Texas 2001 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether Todd Shipyards admits of exceptions for independently procured insurance taxes that are (i) in the nature of a compensatory use tax; (ii) are non-disciminatory in whole or in part with respect to similar transactions occurring within the taxing State; (iii) are placed with affiliated insurance subsidiaries; or (iv) cover insureds within an affiliated group that includes subsidiaries organized or having a commercial domicile within the taxing State.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Appellant,
v.
Caterpillar Tractor Co., Illinois Department of Revenue, et al., Appellees.
No. 81-349 Supreme Court of the United States, on Appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois 1981 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Multistate Tax Commission in Response to the Jurisdictional Statement IS a state either permitted or required, by either the commerce or due process clauses, to employ the unitary method to determine the taxable net income of a domestic United States' parent corporation and its domestic subsidiaries doing business in the state if such corporations conduct a worldwide unitary business in conjunction with commonly owned, controller and manager subsidiary corporations, including foreign subsidiary and affiliated corporations?
Commissioner of Revenue,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Comcast Corporation and Continental Teleport, Inc, A/K/A Continental Holding Company,
Defendants- Appellees.
No. SJC –10209 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2008 Brief for the Amicus Curiae, Multistate Tax Commission Whether the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine may prevent disclosure to a tax agency of tax planning documents prepared by a public accounting firm.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner,
v.
United States Tobacco Company, Respondent.
No. 77-1780 Supreme Court of the United States, on appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania 1978 Motion to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioner
Brief of the Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner's Position Regarding Jurisdiction
Brief asked the court to note probable jurisdiction
(petition for certiorari denied)
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland,
Petitioner,
v.
Brian Wynne, et ux.,
Respondents.
No. 13-485 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland 2014 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury Whether the Commerce Clause requires Maryland to reduce its own tax on income realized by resident shareholders of a corporate entity by an amount equal to the taxes paid by those shareholders in other states in which the entity conducted business.
Crutchfield Corp.,
Appellant,
v.
Joseph W. Testa,
Tax Commissioner of Ohio,
Appellee.
No. 15-0386 Supreme Court of Ohio 2015 Brief of Amicus Curiae the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Appellee Joseph W. Testa, Tax Commissioner of Ohio Whether the bright-line imposition of the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax on businesses with more than $500,000 in annual gross receipts from interstate sales violates the Commerce Clause.
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Petitioner
v.
Alabama Department of Revenue and Cynthia Underwood, Assistant Revenue Commissioner
Respondents.
No. 09-520 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
2010 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondents Whether 49 U.S.C. §11501(c) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction to review claims brought under §11501(b)(4), and -- if so -- whether a State’s exemptions of rail carrier competitors, but not rail carriers, from generally applicable sales and use taxes on fuel subject the
taxes to challenge under 49 U.S.C. §11501(b)(4).
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Petitioner,
v.
State Board of Equalization of the State of
Georgia; Bart L. Graham, as Commissioner of
Revenue of the State of Georgia; Russell W. Hinton,
as State Auditor of the State Of Georgia;
and Gena L. Abraham, as Director of the Georgia
State Properties Commission,
Respondents.
No. 06-1287 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
2007 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondents Whether Section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act or the Act), currently codified at 49 U.S.C. § 11501, gives federal district courts jurisdiction to review a state’s choice of reasonable methodology for estimating “true market value” of railroad property. 
Department of Revenue of Oregon, and Richard Munn, in his capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue, Petitioners,
v.
ACF Industries, Inc; General American Transportation Corp.; General Electroc Railcar Services Corp; Pullman Leasing Co.; Railbox Co.; Railgon Co.; Trailer Train Co.; and Union Tank Car Co., Respondents.
No. 92-74 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1993 Brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors' association, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, International City/County Management Association, and the National Institute of Municipal Law officers, Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission, as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners Whether state may grant property tax exemptions from generally applicable tax without subjecting taxation of railroad property to challenge under subsection of Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prohibiting “another tax that discriminates against a railroad carrier.”
Department of the Revenue of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Finance and Administration Cabinet of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Petitioners,
v.
George W. Davis and Katherine W. Davis, Respondents.
No. 06-666 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2006 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners Whether Kentucky's treatment of bond interest income earned by its residents discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, and whether Pike applied.
Direct Marketing Association,
Petitioner,
v.
Barbara Brohl, in Her Capacity as Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue,
Respondent.
No. 13-1032 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 2014 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent Whether the federal Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars the suit from being heard in the federal courts.
Direct Marketing Association,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Barbara Brohl, in Her Capacity as Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-1175 United States Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit 2015 Amicus Curiae Brief of the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Barbara Brohl, In Her Capacity as Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue Supporting Reversal of the District Court’s Decision Whether the dormant Commerce Clause prevented Colorado from imposing information-reporting requirements necessary for tax compliance and enforcement on certain businesses that lacked the requisite physical presence to be required to collect sales and use tax.
Director of Revenue, Petitioner,
v.
CoBank ACB, as Successor to the National Bank for Cooperatives
No. 99-1792 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri 1999 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether National Bank for Cooperatives, which Congress had designated as federally chartered instrumentality of United States, was  exempt from state income taxation after Congress' deletion of the Farm Credit Act provision exempting bank for cooperatives from state taxation.
Directv, Inc. and Echostar Satellite, L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
 v.
Richard Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 2009 - 0627 Supreme Court of Ohio 2009 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Defendant -Appellee  Whether Ohio’s imposition of its retail sales tax on the sale of direct-to-home satellite broadcasting services violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Duwayne D. Hammond, Jr.; Coleen Grant; Larry Watson; Severina Sam Haws, in their official capacity as commissioners of the Idaho State Tax Commission,
Petitioners,
v.
Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
 Respondents.
No. 04-624 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether State of Idaho could collect motor fuel tax on gasoline delivered by non-tribal distributors to tribally-owned gas stations for sale on Indian reservations.
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Appellee,

v.

State Tax Assessor, Appellant.
Law Docket No. KEN-95-206 Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court, on report from the Kennebec County Superior Court 1995 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of State Tax Assessor Whether the apportionment formula adopted by the Maine State Tax Assessor violated the Due Process Clause or Foreign Commerce Clause to the extent that it permitted Maine to include foreign-source dividends in the computation of the taxable income of a Maine-nexus corporation.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.,
Appellants,
v.
Mississippi State Tax Commission,
Appellee.
No. 2010-CA-01857 Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi 2011 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission Whether the Mississippi State Tax Commission had authority to invoke the "equitable apportionment" provisions of Miss. Admin. Code 35.III.806 § 402-10 to more fairly apportion the Taxpayers' income.
Franchise Tax Board of the State Of California,
Petitioner,
v.
Gilbert P. Hyatt,
Respondent.
No. 14-1175 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada 2015 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission In Support Of Petitioner Franchise Tax Board of the State Of California Whether a state can assert its sovereign immunity against a suit brought in another state’s court (challenge to Nevada v. Hall)
Franchise Tax Board of the State Of California,
Petitioner,
v.
Gilbert P. Hyatt,
Respondent.
No. 14-1175 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada 2015 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission In Support Of Petitioner  Whether a state can assert its sovereign immunity against a suit brought in another state’s court (challenge to Nevada v. Hall)
Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, Petitioner,
v.
Gilbert P. Hyatt and Eighth Judicial Court of the State of Nevada, Respondents.
No. 02-42 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada 2002 Brief Amicus Curiaeof the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether Nevada court was required to extend full faith and credit to California statute conferring complete immunity on California agencies.
Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, Petitioner,
v.
Gilbert P. Hyatt and Eighth Judicial Court of the State of Nevada, Respondents.
No. 02-42 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for  Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada 2002 Brief Amicus Curiaeof the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether the Supreme Court should reevaluate its ruling in Nevada v. Hall
Franchise Tax Board of the State of California; Leonard Wilson, individually and as District Manager, Chicago Office of the Franchose Tax Board of the State of California; and B.M. Rarang, individually and as Auditor, Chicago Office of the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, Petitioners,
v.
Alcan Aluminum Limited and Imperial Chemical Industries PLC,
Respondents
No. 88-1400 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1988 Brief of the Multistate Tax Commission, as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Petitioners 1. Whether a foreign company which is the sole stockholder of an American subsidiary has standing to challenge in federal court the accounting method by which the State of California determines the locally taxable income of that subsidiary;

2. Whether, assuming that standing exists, a federal action for injunctive and declaratory relief is nevertheless barred by the Tax Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 1341) or the principle of comity which underlies the act.
Franchise Tax Board of
the State of California,
Appellant, Cross-Respondent,
v.
Gilbert P. Hyatt,
Respondent, Cross-Appellant.
No. 53264 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada 2009 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Appellant/Cross Respondent Franchise Tax Board of the State of California Whether Hyatt’s interests in adjudicating tort claims against California in the  Nevada courts were outweighed by these considerations of comity and federalism
G. Thomas Surtees,
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Alabama Department of Revenue, and the
State of Alabama Department of Revenue,
Respondents-Appellants,
v.
VFJ Ventures INC.
(f/k/a VF Jeanswear Inc.),
Plaintiff-Appellee.
(Initial)
No. 2060478 Court of Civil Appeals for the State of Alabama 2007 Brief of the Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondents-Appellants G. Thomas Surtees, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue, And the State of Alabama Department of Revenue Whether the exception to the "add-back" requirement "if the corporation establishes that the adjustments are unreasonable" would nullify the add-back requirement whenever the taxpayer could demonstrate that the expense payments to a related entity had some plausible non-tax business purpose.
G. Thomas Surtees,
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Alabama Department of Revenue, and the
State of Alabama Department of Revenue,
Respondents-Appellants,
v.
VFJ Ventures INC.
(f/k/a VF Jeanswear Inc.),
Plaintiff-Appellee.
(Reply)
No. 2060478 Court of Civil Appeals for the State of Alabama 2007 Reply Brief of the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondents-Appellants G. Thomas Surtees, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue, And the State of Alabama Department of Revenue Whether the proper test for application of the "unreasonableness" exception should be whether the add-back of the expense deduction would result in distortion by materially overstating the taxpayer's earnings in the state
General Motors Corporation et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
Franchise Tax Board,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. S127086 Supreme Court of the State of California 2005 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Defendant-Appellant, Franchise Tax Board Whether returns of principal should  be included in the sales factor used for
apportioning a taxpayer’s business income under the Uniform Division of
Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA).
General Motors Corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
Roger W. Tracy, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Respondent.
No. 95-1232 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio 1995 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent Whether Ohio's general sales and use tax exemption for natural gas purchased from utilities discriminated against interstate commerce.
Gerald Goldberg, Executive Officer of the California Franchise Tax Board,
Petitioner,
v.
James Ellett,
Respondent.

E. Les Sorenson, Executive Director of the California State Board of Equalization,
Petitioner,
v.
Carmine Artiglio,
Respondent.
No. 01-731 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2001 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission In Support of Petitioners Whether a bankrupcty discharge order could be enforced against state tax official, in suit for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, pursuant to Ex Parte Young doctrine.
GTE Automatic Electric Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert H. Allphin, as Director of Revenue of the State of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 48578 Supreme Court of Illinois   Brief of Amicus Curiae 1. Whether receipts of sales, consumated by delivery by appellant's suppliers from Illinois sources to appellant's customers located in states in which appellant was not taxable, were properly included in appellant's Illinois numerator of the sales factor of the apportionment formula, and, if not, were those receipts properly excluded from both the numerator and denominator of the sales factor.

2. Whether the receipts from appellant's sales to its out-of-state customers located in state in which the appellant was not subject to tax and delivered to such customers by appellant's out-of-state suppliers located in states in which appellant was not subject to tax were properly included in appellant's Illinois numerator of the sales factors in the formula, and, if not, were the receipts properly excluded from both the numerator and denominator of the sales factor.
Harris Corporation, et. al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Arizona Department of Revenue,
Defendant-Appellant.

First Data Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Arizona Department of Revenue,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 1 CA-TX 11-0006 and 1 CA-TX 11-0008 Court of Appeals, State of Arizona, Division One 2012 Joint Amicus Curiae Brief of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Arizona Department of Revenue Whether capital transactions may give rise to “business income” by meeting a stand-alone “functional test” under Section 1(a) of UDITPA.
Henry Harper, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Virginia Department of Taxation, Respondent.
No. 91-794 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia 1992 Brief of the  National Governors' Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, International City/County Management Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Institute of Municipal Law Officers and Council of State Governmets ; Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent Whether the Court's decision in Davis v. Michigan Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), should be applied retroactively. 
Heublein, Inc.,
v.
South Carolina Tax Commission
No. 71-879 Supreme Court of the United States, on Appeal from the Supreme Court of South Carolina 1971 Memorandum for the Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae Whether, incident to South Carolina's valid scheme of regulating the sale of liquor within the state, a requirement that a manufacturer do more, as a condition of doing business, than merely solicit sales was permissible even though it had the effect of requiring the out-of-state manufacturer to undertake activities that eliminate its P.L. 86-272 protection.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Affiliates,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
Arizona Department of Revenue,
An Executive Administrative Agency of the State of Arizona,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1 CA-TX 12-0005  Court of Appeals, State of Arizona, Division One 2012 Amicus Curiae Brief of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Arizona Department of Revenue Whether the taxpayer  was engaged in a single unitary business with its wholly-owned subsidiary where the subsidiary received tax-free the parent company's intangibles and subsequently licensed them back to the parent.
Hunt-Wesson, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
Franchise Tax Board, Respondent.
No. 98-2043 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California for the First Appellate District 1999 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent Whether California's interest matching rule resulted in extra-territorial taxation, and whether California's rule discriminated against interstate and foreign commerce; whether the Constitution mandates any method of matching interest expenses with taxable and non-taxable income.
In the Matter of the Appeal of Intercard, Inc., from an Order of the Division of Taxation on Assessment of Compensating Use Tax Board of Tax Appeals Docket No. 199806864-DT

Supreme Court No. 99-8302-AS
Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, on appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals 2000 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission Whether Intercard's in-state installation services  exceeded a de minimis presence and created nexus under the Commerce Clause sufficient to subject it to Kansas' taxing jurisdiction
In The Matter Of the Protest of Barnesandnoble.com LLC,
Defendant-Appellant,
v.
New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 33,627 Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico 2012 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department Whether barnesandnoble.com was subject to New Mexico gross receipts tax despite lacking  physical presence in the State of New Mexico.
International Business Machines Corporation,
Plaintiff/ Appellant,
v
Department of Treasury of the State of Michigan,
Defendant/ Appellee.
No. 146440 Michigan Supreme Court 2013 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Defendant/Appellee Department of Treasury of the State of Michigan Whether Michigan may vary from Articles III.1 and IV of the Multistate Tax Compact
International Business Machines Corporation,
Plaintiff/ Appellant,
v
Department of Treasury of the State of Michigan,
Defendant/ Appellee.

No. 306618
Michigan Court of Appeals   Brief  Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Michigan Department of Treasury Whether Michigan may vary from Articles III.1 and IV of the Multistate Tax Compact
Japan Line, Ltd., et al, Appellants,
v.
County of Los Angeles, et al, Appellees.
No. 77-1378 Supreme Court of the United States, on Appeal from the Supreme Court of California 1977 Amicus Brief of the Multistate Tax Commission and Participating States Whether California ad valorem property tax, as applied to Japanese shipping companies' cargo containers which were based, registered, and subjected to property tax in Japan, and were used exclusively in foreign commerce, was unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
Lanco, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Director, Division of Taxation,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. A-3285-03T1 Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division 2005? Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission Whether the physical presence requirement for commerce clause “substantial nexus” for sales and use taxes under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota extends to income taxes.
McKesson Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, and Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, Respondents.
No. 88-192 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida 1989 Brief on Reargument of the National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National Governors' Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and International City Management Association; Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents 1. When a taxpayer pays under protest a state tax found to violate clearly established law under the Commerce Clause, most the State provide some form of retrospective relief, such as a tax refund or an offsetting tax on past beneficiaries of the tax preference, or may the State elect to provide only prospective relief?

2. May a State, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, remedy the effects of a tax found to discriminate against an interstate business in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause by retroactively raising the taxes of those who benefited from the discrimination?
Microsoft Corporation,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
 vs.
Franchise Tax Board,
Defendant and Appellant
No. S133343 Supreme Court of the State of California   Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Defendant-Appellant, Franchise Tax Board Whether returns of principal are  “gross receipts,” to be included in the sales factor used for apportioning a taxpayer’s business income under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA).
Miller Brewing Company, Petitioner,
v.
Indiana State Department of Revenue, Respondent.
Cause No. 49S00-0711-TA-00553 Supreme Court of the State of Indiana 2008 Multistate Tax Commission Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent, Indiana Department of Revenue Whether the State Tax Department was precluded from assessing Indiana tax on carrier pick-up sales (Commission's brief advocated for mandatory taxpayer disclosure of inconsistency in method of reporting income)
Montana Department of Revenue,
Plaintiff/ Appellant,
-vs-
Priceline.Com, Inc.; Travel Web LLC; Trip Network, Inc; Orbitz LLC; Expedia, Inc.; Travelocity.Com, LP; Hotwire, Inc.; Site59.Com, LLC, And Does 1-1,000, Inclusive,
Defendants/ Appellees.
No. DA 14-0260 Supreme Court of the State of Montana   Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Appellant Montana Department of Revenue Whether Montana's sales and use tax applied to sellers where they did not "own" the underlying physical property being sold or leased to customers.
National Private Truck Council, Inc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
Oklahoma Tax Commission, et al., Respondents
No. 94-688 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma 1994 Brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National Governors' Association, National Association of Counties, International City/County Management Association, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission, as Amici Curiae in support of Respondents Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedial scheme for taxpayers.
Ohio Grocers Association, et al.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
 v.
William W. Wilkins [Richard A.
Levin], in his official capacity as Ohio Tax
Commissioner,
 Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2008-2018 Supreme Court of Ohio 2009 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission In Support of Defendant-Appellant, Richard A Levin, Successor to William W. Wilkins, Ohio Tax Commissioner  Whether the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax may be properly considered a franchise tax imposed on the privilege of doing business in the state, rather than a sales tax or other excise tax imposed on sales or retail transactions. 
Performance Marketing Association, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Brian A. Hamer, in his capacity as Director, Illinois Department Of Revenue, 
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 114496 Supreme Court of the State of Illinois 2012 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission  Whether the Constitution is violated by a statute requiring an out-of-state retailer to collect sales tax on in-state sales if the retailer has paid referral contracts with in-state affiliates.
Polar Tankers, Inc.,
Petitioner,
v.
City of Valdez, Alaska,
Respondent
No. 08-310 Supreme Court of the United States, on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alaska 2009 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent Whether the  “port-day” apportionment formula ( a single factor ratio of days spent in Port Valdez to days spent in all ports) offends either the due process or the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
Quill Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
State of North Dakota, by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp, Respondent.
Nos. 88-192 and 88-325 Supreme Court of the United States 1989 Brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National Governors' Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and International City Management Association; Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents Whether Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) stated the appropriate test for determining the availability of a tax refund as a remey for a violation of the Commerce Clause.
Quill Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
State of North Dakota, by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp, Respondent.
No. 91-194 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota 1991 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent Whether mail-order business needed to have physical presence in state in order to permit state, consistent with requirements of due process and Commerce Clause, to require it to collect use tax from its in-state customers.
Richard A. Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Petitioner,
v.
Commerce Energy, Inc., et al., Respondents.
No. 09-223 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2009 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioner Whether comity doctrine or the Tax Injunction act required IMs' complaint of allegedly discriminatory state taxation, framed as a request to increase a commercial competitor's tax burden, to proceed originally in state court.
Robert L. Thomas,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Cynthia Bridges, Director of the
Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana,
Defendant-Applicant.
No. 2013-C-1855 Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana 2013 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Applicant’s Application for Writs of Certiorari Whether legal effect must be given to the purported registration in Montana of a motor home by a “shell” limited liability company established for the exclusive purpose of avoiding Louisiana’s sales tax on motor vehicles purchased in the state. 
Ruth E. Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, state of Tennessee, Petitioner,
v.
J.C. Penney National Bank, Respondent
No. 00-205 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the State of Tennessee 2000 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether out-of-state bank that issued credit cards to state residents was physically present in the state and, thus, had a substantial nexus necessary for franchise and excise taxes to satisfy the Commerce Clause (brief urged court to grant certiorari)
Shell Oil Company, Appellant,
v.
The Iowa Department of Revenue, Appellee.
No. 87-894 Supreme Court of the United States, on Appeal from the Supreme Court of Iowa 1987 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee Whether the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act precludes the State of Iowa from imposing a tax upon that portion of a unitary net income base which is reasonably attributable to the taxpayer's income-producing activities.
State of Arkansas, Petitioner,
v.
Farm Credit Services of Central Arkansas, PCA, et al., Respondents.
No. 95-1918 Supreme Court of the United States on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1996 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether, under federal law that exempted PCA's from state taxes on their notes, debentures, and other obligations, a PCA was also immune from Arkansas sales and income taxes. (Brief argued that the Tax Injunction Act barred the subject matter jurisdcition of the court)
State of Montana; Mary Bryson; Big Horn County; and Martha Fletcher, Petitioners,
v.
Crow Tribe of Indians; and United States of America, Respondents
No. 96-1829 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1996 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of State of Montana Whether the Crow Tribe and the United States had an equitable claim to taxes paid by a third party to Montana and Big Horn County (Brief asked court to grant petition for certiorari).
Stephen Richards, in his official capacity as Secetary, Kansas Department of Revenue, Petitioner,
v.
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Respondent.
No. 04-631 Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2004 Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner Whether the State of Kansas could impose a motor fuel excise tax on non-Indian distributor for fuel supplied to gas station operated by tribe on reservation property.
The Direct Marketing Association,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Barbara Brohl, in her capacity as Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Revenue,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-1175 United States Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit 2012 Corrected Brief Amicus Curiae of Multistate Tax Commission In Support Of Barbara Brohl, In Her Capacity as Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue, In Favor of Reversal Whether Colorado's use tax notice and reporting statute was discriminatory or unduly burdensome within the meaning of the dormant commerce clause.
The Gillette Company & Subsidiaries,
Plaintiffs & Appellants,
v.
California Franchise Tax Board, an Agency of the State of California,
Defendant and Respondent
No. A130803 Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, Division Four 2011 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant and Respondent  Whether the adoption of California's mandatory apportionment formula other
than the UDITPA formula that superseded the Compact's  Article III election was an impermissible alteration or amendment of the Compact
The Gillette Company & Subsidiaries,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
California Franchise Tax Board, an Agency of the State of California,
Defendant-Respondent.
 No. S206587 Supreme Court of the State of California 2013 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Multistate Tax Commission In Support Of Defendant-Respondent California Franchise Tax Board Whether the Multistate Tax Compact is  a binding interstate compact, preventing  California from varying from Compact Articles III.1 and IV.
The Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, Appellant,
v.
Board of Equalization of California, Appellee.
No. 88-1374 Supreme Court of the United States, on Appeal from the Court of Appeal of the State of California, fourth Appellate District, Division One 1989 Brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and International City Management Association; Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee 1. Whether the court of appeal's rejection of appellant's Due Process and Commerce Clause arguments rests on an independent and adequate state ground.

2. Whether appellant's systematic and purposeful exploitation of the California market in its mail order business provides an adequate "nexus" to support the imposition of the State's use tax.
The Meadwestvaco Corporation, Successor in Interest to the Mead Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Illinois Department of Revenue, Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, and Treasurer of the State of Illinois
No. 06-1413 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Court of the State of Illinois 2006 Brief of Multistate Tax Commission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents Whether the State of Illinois properly taxed an apportioned share of the capital gain recognized in the sale of the assets used in the Taxpayer's electronic publishing division.
The Sherwin-Williams Company, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
Department of Revenue, State of Oregon, Defendant/Appellant.
Tax Court No. 4127

Supreme Court No. S46023
Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, on appeal from the Oregon Tax Court, the Hon. Carl N. Byers, Presiding 1999 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Department of Revenue, Defendant-Appellant Whether the denominator of the sales factor of UDITPA's 3-factor formula for the apportionment of multistate income includes the total amounts received (including return of capital) from redemption upon maturity or sale of debt instruments used for interim investment of working capital.
Trinova Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
State of Michigan, Respondent.
No. 89-1106 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Michigan Supreme Court 1989 Brief of the Council of State Governments, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National Governors' Association, National Association of Counties, and International City Management Association; Joined by the Multistate Tax Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent Whether Michigan's Single Business Tax was consistent with the Commerce and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.
Union Pacific Railroad Company; and Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
Dan Salomone, Commissioner of Revenue, Department of Revenue in the State of Minnesota; Department of Revenue of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota, Defendants/Appellees.
06-3397 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 2006 Brief of Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of the State of Minnesota Whether Minnesota sales tax exemptions that apply to purchases of motor fuel upon which a petroleum excise tax has been paid amount to impermissible discrimination against a rail carrier in violation of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
VFJ Ventures, Inc. (f/k/a/ VF Jeanswear, Inc.), Petitioner,
v.
G. Thomas Surtees, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Revenue for the State of Alabama, and the State of Alabama Department of Revenue, Respondents.
No. 1070718 Supreme Court of Alabama, on Writ of Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, Cause No. 2060478 2008 Brief of the Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondents Whether royalty payments made by a multistate corporation to related intangible management companies, which were part of the same corporate family and licensed back to the corporation trademarks and trade names, were subject to the “unreasonable exception” in Alabama's add-back statute, and, thus, whether they would be added to the corporation's federal taxable income when calculating the corporation's taxable income in Alabama.
Vodafone Americas Holdings, Inc. & Subsidiaries,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
Richard H. Roberts,
Commissioner of Revenue
State of Tennessee,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. M2013-00947-SC-R1 1-CV Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville 2015 Brief of  Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Defendant-Appellee Whether the commissioner properly exercised his authority to vary the standard apportionment formula in order to fairly reflect Taxpayer's activities (and, therefore, its net earnings and net worth) for purposes of Tennessee franchise and excise taxes.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Petitioner,
v.
William Wrigley, Jr. Company, Respondent.
No. 91-119 Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin 1991 Brief Amicus Curiaeof the Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Petitioner When apportioning income, how are the "solicitation" and "delivery" requirements in P.L. 86-272 to be applied by state taxing authorities in the face of conflicting decisions from state courts as to whether those requirements admit of a de minimis exception, and as to whether "solicitation" encompasses post-sale activities "incidental" to the canvassing of retail customers.