Indiana Taxation of Out-of-State Sales

The case discusses the imposition of a use tax in Indiana on sales transactions that were completed outside of the state. The company, with branches in Indiana, accepted orders and contracts from dealers and retail purchasers who desired to take delivery of goods at its factories in Indiana or elsewhere. Payments were received by the Indiana branches. The court held that the transaction was not affected by the fact that the ultimate destination of the goods may have been known to the seller at the time of the sale, as long as the order or contract was accepted and payment was received within the state. The court also noted that the Act exempted income derived from business conducted in commerce between Indiana and other states or foreign countries, and therefore did not apply to these transactions.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., et al. v. DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY, et al.
Case Information:
Docket/Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Date Issued: 05/15/1944 February 29, 1944
Tax Type(s): Corporate Income Tax
Cite: 322 US 340 , 64 S Ct 1019 , 88 L Ed 1313
Case Information: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. APPEAL from a
judgment sustaining as to certain transactions of the appellants a state tax on gross receipts.
OPINION
[I have included only the dissenting opinion for this case and two other related cases
(Dilworth and General Trading). While ordinarily we do not focus on the dissenting
opinion, this opinion is important as it established the constitutional framework for
adjudicating the validity of state sales and use taxes on interstate retail sales. The
essential facts and the majority’s disposition of each of the three cases are set out in
Justice Rutledge’s opinion. ]
MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, concurring in No. 355 (this case) and No. 441, ante, p. 335, and
dissenting in No. 311, ante, p. 327:
These three cases present in various applications the question of the power of a state to tax
transactions having a close connection with interstate commerce.
In No. 311, McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co., ante, p. 327, Arkansas has construed its tax to be a
sales tax, but has held this cannot be applied where a Tennessee corporation, having its home
office and place of business in Memphis, solicits orders in Arkansas, by mail, telephone or
sending solicitors regularly from Tennessee, accepts the orders in Memphis, and delivers the
goods there to the carrier for shipment to the purchaser in Arkansas. This Court holds the tax

invalid, because "the sale — the transfer of ownership — was made in Tennessee. For Arkansas
to impose a tax on such transaction would be to project its powers beyond its boundaries and to
tax an interstate transaction." Though an Arkansas "use tax" might be sustained in the same
situation, "we are not dealing with matters of nomenclature even though they be matters of
nicety." And the case is thought to be different from the Berwind-White case, 309 U.S. 33, where
New York City levied the tax, because, in the Arkansas court's language, "the corporation
maintained its sales office in New York City, took its contracts in New York City and made actual
delivery in New York City...."
On the other hand, in No. 441, General Trading Co. v. State Tax Commission, ante, p. 335, Iowa
applies its "use tax" to a transaction in which a Minnesota corporation ships goods from
Minnesota, its only place of business, to Iowa purchasers on orders solicited in Iowa by salesmen
sent there regularly from Minnesota for that purpose, the orders being accepted in Minnesota.
This tax the Court sustains. While "no State can tax the privilege of doing interstate business, ...
the mere fact that property is used for interstate commerce or has come into an owner's
possession as a result of interstate commerce does not diminish the protection which it may draw
from a State to the upkeep of which it may be asked to bear its fair share But a fair share
precludes legislation obviously hostile or practically discriminatory toward interstate commerce....
None of these infirmities affects the tax in this case...." And the foreign or nonresident seller who
does no more than solicit orders in Iowa, as the Tennessee seller does in Arkansas, may be
made the state's tax collector.
In No. 355, International Harvester Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, ante, p. 340, the state applies its
gross income tax, among other situations, to one (Class D) where a foreign corporation
authorized to do and doing business in Indiana sells and delivers its product in Indiana to out-of-
state customers who come into the state for the transaction. The Court sustains the tax as
applied.
I.
For constitutional purposes, I see no difference but one of words and possibly one of the scope of
coverage between the Arkansas tax in No. 311 and the Iowa tax in No. 441. This is true whether
the issue is one of due process or one of undue burden on interstate commerce. Each tax is
imposed by the consuming state. On the records here, each has a due process connection with

the transaction in that fact and in the regular, continuous solicitation there. Neither lays a greater
burden on the interstate business involved than it does on wholly intrastate business of the same
sort. Neither segregates the interstate transaction for separate or special treatment. In each
instance therefore interstate and intrastate business reach these markets on identical terms, so
far as the effects of the state taxes are concerned.
And in my opinion they do so under identical material circumstances. In both cases the sellers are
"nonresidents" of the taxing state, foreign corporations. Neither seller maintains an office or a
place of business there. Each has these facilities solely in the state of origin. In both cases the
orders are taken by solicitors sent regularly to the taxing state for that purpose. In both the orders
are accepted at the home office in the state of origin. And in both the goods are shipped by
delivery to the carrier or the post in the state of origin for carriage across the state line and
delivery by it to the purchaser in his taxing state.
In the face of such identities in connections and effects, it is hard to see how one tax can be
upheld and the other voided. Surely the state's power to tax is not to turn on the technical legal
effect, relevant for other purposes but not for this, that "title passes" on delivery to the carrier in
Memphis and may or may not so pass, so far as the record shows, when the Minnesota shipment
is made to Iowa. In the absence of other and more substantial difference, that irrelevant technical
consideration should not control. However it may be determined for locating the incidence of loss
in transit or other questions arising among buyer, seller and carrier, for purposes of taxation that
factor alone is a will-o'-the-wisp, insufficient to crux a due process connection from selling to
consuming state and incapable of increasing or reducing any burden the tax may place upon the
interstate transaction.
The only other difference is in the terms used by Iowa and Arkansas, respectively, to describe
their taxes. For reasons of her own Arkansas describes her tax as a "sales tax." Iowa calls hers a
"use tax." This court now is committed to the validity of "use" taxes. Henneford v. Silas Mason
Co., 300 U.S. 577; Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62; Nelson v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359; Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 312 U.S. 373 . Similarly,
"sales taxes" on "interstate sales" have been sustained. In McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal
Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33 , such a tax applied by the state of the market was upheld.
CompareBanker Brothers Co. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U.S. 210 ; Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, 294

U.S. 169. Other things being the same, constitutionality should not turn on whether one name or
the other is applied by the state. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435. The difference
may be important for the scope of the statute's application, that is, whether it is intended to apply
to some transactions but not to others that are within reach of the state's taxing power. It hardly
can determine whether the power exists.
II.
The Court's different treatment of the two taxes does not result from any substantial difference in
the facts under which they are levied or the effects they may have on interstate trade. It arises
rather from applying different constitutional provisions to the substantially identical taxes, in the
one case to invalidate that of Arkansas, in the other to sustain that of Iowa. Due process destroys
the former. Absence of undue burden upon interstate commerce sustains the latter.
It would seem obvious that neither tax of its own force can impose a greater burden upon the
interstate transaction to which it applies than it places upon the wholly local trade of the same
character with which that transaction competes. By paying the Arkansas tax the Tennessee seller
will pay no more than an Arkansas seller of the same goods to the same Arkansas buyer; and the
latter will pay no more to the Tennessee seller than to an Arkansas vendor, on account of the tax,
in absorbing its burden. The same thing is true of the Iowa tax in its incidence upon the sale by
the Minnesota vendor. The cases are not different in the burden the two taxes place upon the
interstate transactions. Nor in my opinion are they different in the existence of due process to
sustain the taxes.
"Due process" and "commerce clause" conceptions are not always sharply separable in dealing
with these problems. Cf. e. g., Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1. To some
extent they overlap. If there is a want of due process to sustain the tax, by that fact alone any
burden the tax imposes on the commerce among the states becomes "undue." But, though
overlapping, the two conceptions are not identical. There may be more than sufficient factual
connections, with economic and legal effects, between the transaction and the taxing state to
sustain the tax as against due process objections. Yet it may fall because of its burdening effect
upon the commerce. And, although the two notions cannot always be separated, clarity of
consideration and of decision would be promoted if the two issues are approached, where they
are presented, at least tentatively as if they were separate and distinct, not intermingled ones.

Thus, in the case from Arkansas no more than in that from Iowa should there be difficulty in
finding due process connections with the taxing state sufficient to sustain the tax. As in the Iowa
case, the goods are sold and shipped to Arkansas buyers. Arkansas is the consuming state, the
market these goods seek and find. They find it by virtue of a continuous course of solicitation
there by the Tennessee seller. The old notion that "mere solicitation" is not "doing business"
when it is regular, continuous and persistent is fast losing its force. In the General Trading case it
loses force altogether, for the Iowa statute defines this process in terms as "a retailer maintaining
a place of business in this state." 1 The Iowa Supreme Court sustains the definition and this Court
gives effect to its decision in upholding the tax. Fiction the definition may be; but it is fiction with
substance because, for every relevant constitutional consideration affecting taxation of
transactions, regular, continuous, persistent solicitation has the same economic, and should have
the same legal, consequences as does maintaining an office for soliciting and even contracting
purposes or maintaining a place of business, where the goods actually are shipped into the state
from without for delivery to the particular buyer. There is no difference between the Iowa and the
Arkansas situations in this respect. Both involve continuous, regular, and not intermittent or
casual courses of solicitation. Both involve the shipment of goods from without to a buyer within
the state. Both involve taxation by the state of the market. And if these substantial connections
are sufficient to underpin the tax with due process in the one case, they are also in the other.
That is true, if labels are not to control, unless something which happens or may happen outside
the taxing state operates in the one case to defeat the jurisdiction, but does not defeat it in the
other.
As I read the Court's opinion, though it does not explicitly so state, the Arkansas tax falls because
Tennessee could tax the transaction and, as between the two states, has exclusive power to do
so. This is because "the sale — the transfer of ownership — was made in Tennessee." Arkansas
relation to the transaction is constitutionally different from that of New York in the Berwind-White
case, though both are the state of the market, because the Berwind-White Company "maintained
its sales office in New York City, took its contracts in New York City and made actual delivery in
New York City." This "constituted a sale in New York and accordingly we sustained a retail sales
tax by New York." So here the company's "offices are maintained in Tennessee, the sale is made
in Tennessee, and the delivery is consummated either in Tennessee or in interstate
commerce...." The inevitable conclusion, it seems to me, is that the Court is deciding not only that

Arkansas cannot tax the transaction, but that Tennessee can tax it and is the only state which can
do so. To put the matter shortly, Arkansas cannot levy the tax because Tennessee can levy it.
Hence "for Arkansas to impose a tax on such transaction would be to project its powers beyond
its boundaries and to tax an interstate transaction."
This statement of the matter appears to be a composite of due process and commerce clause
ideas. If so, it is hard to see why the same considerations do not nullify Iowa's power to levy her
tax in the identical circumstances and vest exclusive jurisdiction in Minnesota to tax these
transactions. For in the Iowa case the selling corporation maintains its office and place of
business in Minnesota, accepts the orders there, and the delivery, which is to carrier or post, is
consummated, so far as the record shows, exactly in the manner it is made in the Tennessee-
Arkansas transaction. If these facts nullify Arkansas' power to tax the transaction by vesting
exclusive jurisdiction in Tennessee, it would seem a fortiori they would nullify Iowa's power and
give Minnesota exclusive jurisdiction to tax the transactions there involved. Unless the sheer
difference in the terms "sale" and "use," and whatever difference these might make as a matter of
legislative selection of the transactions which are to bear the tax, are to control upon the
existence of the power to tax, the result should be the same in both cases.
Merely as a matter of due process, it is hard to see why any of the four states cannot tax the
transactions these cases involve. Each has substantial relations and connections with the
transaction, the state of market not less in either case than the state of origin. It "sounds better"
for the state of origin to call its tax a "sales tax" and the state of market to name its tax a "use
tax." But in the Berwind-White case the latter's "sales tax" was sustained, where it is true more of
the incidents of sale conjoined with the location of the place of market than do in either No. 311 or
No. 441. If this is the distinguishing factor, as it might be for selecting one of the two connected
jurisdictions for exclusive taxing power, it is not one which applies to either of these transactions.
The identity is not between the Dilworth case and Berwind-White. It is rather between Dilworth
and General Trading, with Berwind-White differing from both. And, so far as due process alone is
concerned, it should make no difference whether the tax in the one case is laid by Arkansas or
Tennessee and in the other by Iowa or Minnesota. Each state has a sufficiently substantial and
close connection with the transaction, whether by virtue of tax benefits conferred in general police
protection and otherwise or on account of ideas of territorial sovereignty concerning occurrence of
"taxable incidents" within its borders, to furnish the due process foundation necessary to sustain

the exercise of its taxing power. Whether it exerts this by selecting for "impingement" of the tax
some feature or incident of the transaction which it denominates "sale" or "use" is both illusory
and unimportant in any bearing upon its constitutional authority as a matter of due process. If this
has any substantive effect, it is merely one of legislative intent in selecting the transactions to
bear the tax and thus fixing the scope of its coverage, not one of constitutional power. "Use" may
cover more transactions with which a state has due process connections than "sale." But
whenever sale occurs and is taxed the tax bears equally, in final incidence of burden, upon the
use which follows immediately upon it.
The great difficulty in allocating taxing power as a matter of due process between the state of
origin and the state of market arises from the fact that each state, considered without reference to
the other, always has a sufficiently substantial relation in fact and in tax benefit conferred to the
interstate transaction to sustain an exertion of its taxing power, a fact not always recognized. And
from this failure, as well as from the terms in which statutes not directed specifically to reaching
these transactions are cast, comes the search for some "taxable incident taking place within the
state's boundaries" as a hook for hanging constitutionality under due process ideas. "Taxable
incident" there must be. But to take what is in essence and totality an interstate transaction
between a state of origin and one of market and hang the taxing power of either state upon some
segmented incident of the whole and declare that this does or does not "tax an interstate
transaction" is to do two things. It is first to ignore that any tax hung on such an incident is levied
on an interstate transaction. For the part cannot be separated from the whole. It is also to ignore
the fact that each state, whether of origin or of market, has by that one fact alone a relation to the
whole transaction so substantial as to nullify any due process prohibition. Whether the tax is
levied on the "sale, or on the "use," by the one state or by the other, it is in fact and effect a tax
levied on an interstate transaction. Nothing in due process requirements prohibits either state to
levy either sort of tax on such transactions. That Tennessee therefore may tax this transaction by
a sales tax does not, in any proper conception of due process, deprive Arkansas of the same
power.
III.
When, however, the issue is turned from due process to the prohibitive effect of the commerce
clause, more substantial considerations arise from the fact that both the state of origin and that of

market exert or may exert their taxing powers upon the interstate transaction. The long history of
this problem boils down in general statement to the formula that the states, by virtue of the force
of the commerce clause, may not unduly burden interstate commerce. This resolves itself into
various corollary formulations. One is that a state may not single out interstate commerce for
special tax burden.McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 55-56. Nor may it
discriminate against interstate commerce and in favor of its local trade. Welton v. Missouri, 91
U.S. at 275 ; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434; Voight v. Wright, 141 U.S. 62. Again, the state may
not impose cumulative burdens upon interstate trade or commerce. Gwin, White & Prince v.
Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 ; Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307. Thus, the state may not
impose certain taxes on interstate commerce, its incidents or instrumentalities, which are no more
in amount or burden than it places on its local business, not because this of itself is
discriminatory, cumulative or special or would violate due process, but because other states also
may have the right constitutionally, apart from the commerce clause, to tax the same thing and
either the actuality or the risk of their doing so makes the total burden cumulative, discriminatory
or special. 2
In these interstate transactions cases involving taxation by the state of origin or that of market,
the trouble arises, under the commerce clause, not from any danger that either tax taken alone,
whether characterized as "sales" or "use" tax, will put interstate trade at a disadvantage which will
burden unduly its competition with the local trade. So long as only one tax is applied and at the
same rate as to wholly local transactions, no unduly discriminatory clog actually attaches to the
interstate transaction of business.
The real danger arises most obviously when both states levy the tax. Thus, if in the instant cases
it were shown that, on the one hand, Arkansas and Iowa actually were applying a "use" tax and
Tennessee and Minnesota a "sales" tax, so that in each case the interstate transaction were
taxed at both ends, the heavier cumulative burden thus borne by the interstate business in
comparison with the local trade in either state would be obvious. If in each case the state of origin
were shown to impose a sales tax of three per cent and the state of market a use tax of the same
amount, interstate transactions between the two obviously would bear double the local tax burden
borne by local trade in each state. This is a difference of substance, not merely one of names,
relevant to the problem created by the commerce clause, though not to that of "jurisdiction" under
due process conceptions. And the difference would be no less substantial if the taxes levied by

both the state of origin and that of market were called "sales" taxes or if, indeed, both were called
"use" taxes.
The Iowa tax in No. 441 avoids this problem by allowing credit for any sales tax shown to be
levied upon the transaction whether in Iowa or elsewhere. Clearly therefore that tax cannot in fact
put the interstate transaction at a tax disadvantage with local trade done in Iowa or elsewhere. 3
However, the Arkansas tax in No. 311 provides for no such credit. But in that case there is no
showing that Tennessee actually imposes any tax upon the transaction. If there is a burden or
clog on commerce, therefore, it arises from the fact that Tennessee has power constitutionally to
impose a tax, may exercise it, and when this occurs the cumulative effect of both taxes will be
discriminatorily burdensome, though neither tax singles out the transaction or bears upon it more
heavily than upon the local trade to which it applies. In short, the risk of multiple taxation creates
the unconstitutional burden which actual taxation by both states would impose in fact.
In my opinion this is the real question and the only one presented in No. 311. And in my judgment
it is determined the wrong way, not on commerce clause grounds but upon an unsustainable
application of the due process prohibition.
Where the cumulative effect of two taxes, by whatever name called, one imposed by the state of
origin, the other by the state of market, actually bears in practical effect upon such an interstate
transaction, there is no escape under the doctrine of undue burden from one or two possible
alternatives. Either one tax must fall or, what is the same thing, be required to give way to the
other by allowing credit as the Iowa tax does, or there must be apportionment. Either solution
presents an awkward alternative. But one or the other must be accepted unless that doctrine is to
be discarded and one of two extreme positions taken, namely, that neither state can tax the
interstate transaction or that both may do so until Congress intervenes to give its solution for the
problem. It is too late to accept the former extreme, too early even if it were clearly desirable or
permissible to follow the latter.
As between apportionment and requiring one tax to fall or allow credit, the latter perhaps would
be the preferable solution. And in my opinion it is the one which the Court in effect, though not in
specific statement, adopts. That the decision is cast more largely in terms of due process than in
those of the commerce clause does not nullify that effect.

If in this case it were necessary to choose between the state of origin and that of market for the
exercise of exclusive power to tax, or for requiring allowance of credit in order to avoid the
cumulative burden, in my opinion the choice should lie in favor of the state of market rather than
the state of origin. 4 The former is the state where the goods must come in competition with those
sold locally. It is the one where the burden of the tax necessarily will fall equally on both classes
of trade. To choose the tax of the state of origin presents at least some possibilities that the
burden it imposes on its local trade, with which the interstate traffic does not compete, at any rate
directly, will be heavier than that placed by the consuming state on its local business of the same
character. If therefore choice has to be made, whether as a matter of exclusive power to tax or as
one of allowing credit, it should be in favor of the state of market or consumption as the one most
certain to place the same tax load on both the interstate and competing local business. Hence, if
the risk of taxation by both states may be said to have the same constitutional consequences,
under the commerce clause, as taxation in actuality by both, the Arkansas tax, rather than the
power of Tennessee to tax, should stand.
It may be that the mere risk of double taxation would not have the same consequences, given
always of course a sufficient due process connection with the taxing states, that actual double
taxation has, or may have, for application of the commerce clause prohibition. Risk of course is
not irrelevant to burden or to the clogging effect the rule against undue burden is intended to
prevent. But in these situations it may be doubted, on entirely practical grounds, that the mere
risk Tennessee may apply its taxing power to these transactions will have any substantial effect in
restraining the commerce such as the actual application of that power would have. In any event,
whether or not the choice must be made now or, as I think, has been made, it should go in favor
of Arkansas, not Tennessee.
For all practical purposes Indiana's gross income tax in No. 355 may be regarded as either a
sales tax or a use tax laid in the state of market, comparable in all respects (except in words) to
the Arkansas tax laid in No. 311 and to the Iowa tax imposed in No. 441, except that here the
seller as well as the buyer does business and concludes the transaction in Indiana, the state of
the market. This is clearly true of Classes C and E. It is true also of Class D, in my opinion,
although the buyer there resided in Illinois but went to Indiana to enter into the transaction and
take delivery of the goods. That he at once removed them, on completion of the transaction there,
to Illinois, intended to do this from the beginning and this fact may have been known to the seller,

does not take from the transaction its character as one entered into and completed in Indiana.
Whether or not Illinois, in these circumstances, could impose a use tax or some other as a
property tax is not presented and need not be determined. If the Arkansas and Iowa taxes stand,
or either does, a fortiori the Indiana tax stands in these applications.
Accordingly, I concur in the decisions in Nos. 441 and 355, but dissent from the decision in No.
311.
1
The stipulation states that the "orders and contracts were accepted by branches outside
Indiana" and payments "were received by branches outside Indiana." The Class C sales were
principally sales of motor trucks manufactured at Fort Wayne and a small amount of goods
manufactured at Richmond. In case of wholesale sales it is the custom for the dealer to notify the
company at the time he desires delivery that he wants to take delivery of the goods himself at
Fort Wayne or Richmond. In the case of retail sales in Class C, "if the user desires to undertake
transportation of the goods to their destination and for that purpose to take delivery at the factory
in Indiana, it is the business practice for the contract or order so to state."
2
The stipulation states that the "orders or contracts were accepted and the sales proceeds were
received by the Branch Managers at the branches located within Indiana." The business custom
or practice respecting deliveries in the State to dealers or retail purchasers was the same as in
case of the Class C sales.
3
The stipulation states that the goods in this class were shipped by the company from outside the
State, the order or contract specifying that "shipment should be made from a point outside
Indiana to the purchaser in Indiana." In these cases, moreover, the orders were "solicited from
purchasers residing in Indiana by representatives of Indiana branches, or the orders or contracts
were received by mail by Indiana branches. The orders and contracts were accepted by the
Branch Manager at branches located within Indiana. Payments of the sales proceeds were
received by branches in Indiana. The sales in this class were of goods manufactured outside the
State of Indiana."
There was no showing, moreover, that goods in this class were of kind that could be obtained
only outside Indiana. It seems to be admitted that Class E sales arose when an Indiana branch

received orders for goods in quantities which could not be economically carried in stock or where
a cheaper freight rate could be obtained by direct shipments from outside Indiana. Cf.Bowman v.
Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 ; Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U.S. 506.
4
Sec. 2 of the Act provided in part: "There is hereby imposed a tax, measured by the amount or
volume of gross income, and in the amount to be determined by the application of rates on such
gross income as hereinafter provided. Such tax shall be levied upon the entire gross income of all
residents of the state of Indiana, and upon the gross income derived from sources within the state
of Indiana, of all persons and/or companies, including banks, who are not residents of the state of
Indiana, but are engaged in business in this state, or who derive gross income from sources
within this state, and shall be in addition to all other taxes now or hereafter imposed with respect
to particular occupations and/or activities." The language of this section was recast by L. 1937, c.
117, § 2, p. 611.
Sec. 6 (a) of the Act exempted "so much of such gross income as is derived from business
conducted in commerce between this state and other states of the United States, or between this
state and foreign countries, to the extent to which the state of Indiana is prohibited from taxing
under the Constitution of the United States of America." And see L. 1937, c. 117, § 6, p. 615.
5
See L. Ill. 1943, p. 1121, § 1 b, amending L. Ill. 1933, p. 924.
1
Cf.Frene v. Louisville Cement Co., 134 F.2d 511 (App. D. C.).
2
Cf. the opinion of the Chief Justice in Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, ante, p. 308.
3
Cf. text infra at note 4 et seq.
4
Cf. Powell, New Light on Gross Receipts Taxes (1940) 53 Harv. L. Rev. 909; Lockhart, The
Sales Tax in Interstate Commerce (1939) 52 Harv. L. Rev. 617: compare Gwin, White & Prince v.
Henneford, 305 U.S. 434; Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307.
© 2013 Thomson Reuters/RIA. All rights reserved.