Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.
It was on June 4th 2015 that the U.S Supreme Court found the State of Maryland’s system of personal income taxation violated the nondiscrimination prong of the Dormant Commerce Clause. This clause states Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, and that states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce, nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity. The Court found that Maryland did not grant a resident credit for county income tax paid on income earned and taxed in another state. What to keep in mind is this particular state’s personal income tax scheme is of composed of three elements:
(1) A state tax imposed on all income of Maryland residents and the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, (2) a county tax (collected by the state) imposed on all income of state residents, and (3) a special nonresident state tax imposed on the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, which tax is said to be in lieu of the county tax and is imposed at a rate equal to the highest county tax within the state (pg. 1; Bright, Schulder, Upham).
In this instance, the Wynnes were state residents and subject to tax in 39 other states because they owned a corporation that resides in multiple states. The Wynnes were able to take a tax credit in Maryland against taxes paid to other states on their corporation income but were not allowed to take a credit against Maryland county tax for taxes paid to other states on the corporation income. The Court held that:
Maryland’s personal income tax system was not internally consistent under the Commerce Clause and therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory. According to the Court, if every state imposed their personal income tax in the same way as Maryland, an individual who lived in one state and worked in another would always be subject to a higher tax burden than an individual who lived and worked in the same state. The taxing scheme gave preferential treatment to purely intrastate activities versus interstate activities.
Therefore, the Court concluded that Maryland’s personal income tax system was not consistent under the Dormant Commerce Clause, and thus, unconstitutional.
In conclusion, the Wynnes were within their constitutional right to get a tax credit not only on their state tax but also on their county tax. This because it was protected under the Dormant Commerce Clause not to discriminate wherever that income is earned.
Danielle is a business administration major with a concentration in management information and technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.