C5C1A104d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT SCRIPTO, INC., v....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 1 DOCUMENT SCRIPTO, INC., v. CARSON, SHERIFF, ET AL. No. 80 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 362 U.S. 207 ; 80 S. Ct. 619; 4 L. Ed. 2d 660; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1449 February 24, 1960, Argued March 21, 1960, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. DISPOSITION: 105 So. 2d 775, affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant Georgia corporation challenged the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida that held that appellant had to register as a dealer under Fla. Stat. ch. 212.06 and collect and remit a use tax imposed on its sales to Florida residents. OVERVIEW: Appellant Georgia corporation sold and shipped mechanical writing instruments from Atlanta to Florida residents. It enlisted 10 independent salesmen to solicit orders in Florida, who forwarded the orders to Atlanta for shipment. Upon appellant's failure to collect use taxes, appellee Florida comptroller levied a use tax liability against it. Appellant filed an action under the Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, contending that the requirement placed a burden on interstate commerce. The court affirmed the state court's holding that appellant had to register as a dealer under Fla. Stat. ch. 212.06 and collect and remit the use tax imposed on its sales. The court determined that the tax was a nondiscriminatory levy for the use and enjoyment of property purchased by Florida residents and that the burden of payment was on the purchaser regardless of the source of the property. The court concluded that a sufficient nexus existed to subject appellant to the statute's exactions because the only nonlocal incidence of appellant's sales was the acceptance of the order, and the tagging of salesmen as "independent" did not change the local function of its business. OUTCOME: The ruling that appellant Georgia corporation had to register as a dealer and collect and remit a use tax imposed on its sales to Florida residents was affirmed upon a finding that a sufficient nexus existed to subject appellant to the tax because the only nonlocal incidence of appellant's sales was the acceptance of the orders solicited in Florida by appellant's salesmen. CORE TERMS: dealer, salesman, purchaser, residents, advertising, interstate commerce, collection, use tax, customer, trading, place of business, collectible, wholesalers, mechanical, salesmen, regular, catalogs, brokers, jobbers, levied, specialty, regular employee, tax imposed, personal property, mass of property, occasionally, solicitation, merchandise, contractual, enjoyment LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
[HN1] See Fla. Stat. ch. 212.06. Torts > Transportation Torts > General Overview [HN2] The impost levied by Fla. Stat. ch. 212.06 is a tax on the privilege of using personal property which has come to rest and has become a part of the mass of property within the state. It is not a sales tax, but was developed as a device to
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

C5C1A104d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT SCRIPTO, INC., v....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online