Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. Wrigley Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 22, 1992 Decided June 19, 1992
Full case name: Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. Citations: 505 U.S. 214 (see more...); 112 S. Ct. 2447; 120 L. Ed. 2d 174 Prior history: Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Holding
Respondent’s activities in Wisconsin exceeded scope of federal exemption from state taxation.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority by: Scalia Joined by: White, Stevens, Souter, Thomas Concurrence by: O'Connor Dissent by: Kennedy Joined by: Rehnquist, Blackmun
Laws applied
15 USC Sec. 381

Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the application of state franchise taxes to out-of-state businesses.

Background

In 1980, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (WDR) decided that the in-state activities of the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company in selling and supplying retailers with chewing gum exceeded limits defined by Congress in 1961 that exempted foreign corporations from franchise and income taxes in a state as long as their activities were limited to soliciting customers. Wrigley, based in Chicago, neither owned nor leased any real property in the state. Its employees were limited to a regional sales manager, who worked out of his house, and district sales representatives who dealt directly with retailers. The company provided the representatives with cars and reimbursed some of their expenses. Nevertheless, WDR believed that since the sales reps also stored gum and personally resupplied retailers, including replacement of stale gum stocks at no cost, the company did more than just solicit customers in Wisconsin.

Wrigley felt that it was exempt from Wisconsin taxation under the Interstate Income Act of 1959 (15 U.S.C. § 381 et seq.), which provides that "states cannot impose a 'net income tax' on 'any person' if the only contact with a state is limited to the solicitation of orders for sales of tangible personal property".¹ A "legal person" can be an individual or a corporate body.²

Wisconsin calls for taxation

Wisconsin believed that the presence of Wrigley in the state was enough to call for a franchise tax. The state believed that Wrigley was not afforded protection, under Public Law 86-272, because it violated solicitation by the follow practices:

• Recruitment, training, and evaluation of sales employees by regional manager
• Intervention in credit disputes by regional manager
• Use of hotel rooms and homes for sales meetings
• Replacement of stale gum at no cost to retailer
• "Agency stock checks" — billing of retailer for gum supplied from in-state inventory to fill display racks
• Storage of gum in sales representatives' homes or in rented space

View of litigants

The state argued for the narrowest possible view: that any activity beyond “asking the customer to purchase the product” removed the protection of P.L.86-272. It also argued that activities leading up to the sale may be protected, but any activities taking place after the sale are more than solicitation.

Wrigley argued for a broad interpretation: that “solicitation” should encompass all ordinary business activities that generally accompany the solicitation process. According to Wrigley, all activities normally assigned to sales reps should be considered solicitation.

Result

The Court found that Wrigley’s activities in Wisconsin exceeded the provisions of the state code and allowed the imposition of the tax.³ The Court ruled that the replacement of stale gum, "agency stock checks", and maintenance of inventory for those purposes were not protected, and the Court sided with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

References

External links

• 505 U.S. 214 (1992) Full text of opinion at findlaw.com

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 15 November 2008, at 02:51.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wisconsin_Department_of_Revenue_v._William_Wrigley,_Jr.,_Co.

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.