Citation:
Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, 575 U.S. (2015)
Facts:
Brian Wynne and his wife live in Howard County, Maryland. Mr. Wynne and his wife own stock in Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc, a company that provides health care services nationally. Maxim’s income is “passed through” to its owners, and the owners are then taxed individually. In 2006, Maxim filed income tax returns in 39 states and allocated a share of taxes paid to each shareholder. The Wynnes claimed the share of Maxim’s income taxes that they paid as a credit against their Maryland individual income tax, which includes Maryland state taxes and Howard County taxes. The Comptroller of Maryland determined that the Wynne’s had incorrectly calculated their county tax credit…show more content… The Tax Court rejected the Wynnes’ argument and affirmed the revised assessment. The Wynnes then appealed to the Maryland Circuit Court of Howard County. The Circuit Court reversed the Tax Court’s decision and held that the county tax without a credit violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The Comptroller appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals and argued that the Commerce Clause was not implicated by the county tax. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court by finding that the county tax implicates the dormant Commerce Clause because it affects the interstate market of capital and business investment and the overlapping power to tax income from said sources. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the county tax without a credit violated the Commerce Clause because the county tax is not fairly apportioned, since taxpayers who earn income from interstate activities would be taxed at higher rates than taxpayers who earn income exclusively in Maryland while the tax covers income earned wholly outside of Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals also held that the county tax is discriminatory against interstate commerce since it favors businesses that do business primarily in
