MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued January 16, 2008 Decided April 15, 2008 | |
Full case name | MeadWestvaco Corp., Successor in Interest to Mead Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, et al. |
Docket no. | 06-1413 |
Citations | 553
U.S.
16 (
more) 128 S. Ct. 1498; 170
L. Ed. 2d 404 |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District |
Holding | |
The state courts erred in considering whether Lexis served an "operational purpose" in Mead's business after determining that Lexis and Mead were not unitary. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous court |
Concurrence | Thomas |
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent a state may tax companies that are not based in their state. [1]
Mead, a corporation based out of Ohio, owned Lexis-Nexis, which was based out of Illinois. [2] Mead sold Lexis, and Illinois maintained that Mead must pay them a proportionate capital-gains tax. [3] Illinois asserted that Mead and Lexis were integrated to the extent required for the "unitary business rule". [4] This rule allowed states to tax a proportionate share of the value generated by an interstate corporation. [5]
In a unanimous opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that the two businesses were not integrated enough to be considered a "unitary business" and Illinois was not allowed to tax Mead on the Lexis sale. [6]
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued January 16, 2008 Decided April 15, 2008 | |
Full case name | MeadWestvaco Corp., Successor in Interest to Mead Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, et al. |
Docket no. | 06-1413 |
Citations | 553
U.S.
16 (
more) 128 S. Ct. 1498; 170
L. Ed. 2d 404 |
Case history | |
Prior | Certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District |
Holding | |
The state courts erred in considering whether Lexis served an "operational purpose" in Mead's business after determining that Lexis and Mead were not unitary. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous court |
Concurrence | Thomas |
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent a state may tax companies that are not based in their state. [1]
Mead, a corporation based out of Ohio, owned Lexis-Nexis, which was based out of Illinois. [2] Mead sold Lexis, and Illinois maintained that Mead must pay them a proportionate capital-gains tax. [3] Illinois asserted that Mead and Lexis were integrated to the extent required for the "unitary business rule". [4] This rule allowed states to tax a proportionate share of the value generated by an interstate corporation. [5]
In a unanimous opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that the two businesses were not integrated enough to be considered a "unitary business" and Illinois was not allowed to tax Mead on the Lexis sale. [6]