DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Cuno, et al.
Whether Ohio's investment tax credit, Ohio Revised Code § 5733.33, which seeks to encourage economic development by providing a credit to taxpayers who install new manufacturing machinery and equipment in the State, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case after determining the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court did not decide the case on the merits.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief on validity of state tax incentives under the Commerce Clause
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s determination that a garden-variety investment tax incentive, a franchise tax credit for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, violates the dormant Commerce Clause. In their complaint, the plaintiffs charged that Ohio impermissibly burdened interstate commerce by granting tax benefits to companies for investment in plants and equipment in Ohio. Having participated in the case below, NCLC
explained to the Court that, in addition to misunderstanding the constitutional doctrines at play, the plaintiffs' challenge ignored the global dimension to the corporate relocation decision. The Sixth Circuit’s belief that states are merely competing with each other in attracting businesses and that such competition offends the dormant Commerce Clause finds no basis in an increasingly global economy where Ohio does not lose business just to Tennessee, but also to countries in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere.
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review validity of state tax incentives under the Commerce Clause Procedural History
Amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari filed 7/20/05. Certiorari granted 09/27/05.
Amicus brief on the merits filed 12/05/05. Decided 5/15/06.