Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance
1992 U.S. LEXIS 3685, 505 U.S. 71, 112 S. Ct. 2365 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state tax scheme that facially discriminates against foreign commerce by taxing dividends from foreign subsidiaries but not from domestic subsidiaries violates the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even if the state's economy is not a direct beneficiary and administrative convenience is cited as a justification.
Facts:
- In 1981, Kraft General Foods, Inc. (Kraft) operated a unitary business across the United States and several foreign countries.
- Because part of its business was conducted in Iowa, Kraft was subject to the Iowa Business Tax on Corporations.
- Iowa's tax statute included the dividends Kraft received from its six foreign subsidiaries in the calculation of taxable income.
- Iowa's tax statute did not tax dividends Kraft received from its domestic subsidiaries.
- The parties stipulated that Kraft's foreign subsidiaries did, in fact, operate in foreign commerce and that the decision to do business abroad through foreign subsidiaries was typically supported by legitimate business reasons.
- Unlike the Federal Government, Iowa did not allow a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries on the dividends.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Iowa tax scheme that includes dividends received from foreign subsidiaries in a corporation's taxable income, while excluding dividends received from domestic subsidiaries, facially discriminate against foreign commerce and therefore violate the Foreign Commerce Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the Iowa tax scheme violates the Foreign Commerce Clause because it facially discriminates against foreign commerce by treating dividends from foreign subsidiaries less favorably than those from domestic subsidiaries. The Court found it indisputable that the Iowa statute treated dividends from foreign subsidiaries less favorably than those from domestic subsidiaries, as Iowa included the former but not the latter in taxable income. The Court rejected Iowa's argument that the domicile of a corporation does not necessarily establish its engagement in foreign commerce, noting the parties stipulated that Kraft's foreign subsidiaries operated in foreign commerce and their dividends constituted foreign commerce. The Court also emphasized that Iowa's tax only applied to dividends reflecting the foreign business activity of foreign subsidiaries, highlighting the direct discrimination. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the contention that Kraft could avoid discrimination by altering its corporate structure, stating that a state cannot compel a taxpayer to conduct foreign business through a domestic subsidiary to circumvent discriminatory taxation. The Court clarified that favoring local interests is not an essential element of a Foreign Commerce Clause violation, as discrimination against foreign commerce, like in Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, implicates national concerns such as potential international retaliation, regardless of direct local benefit. It further rejected the idea that other state and federal taxes could offset the discriminatory burden imposed by Iowa. Finally, the Court concluded that administrative convenience, while a legitimate state goal, is an insufficient justification for facial discrimination against foreign commerce when less discriminatory alternatives exist, as demonstrated by other states' practices. Such marginal administrative benefits do not outweigh constitutional concerns, particularly when compared to serious health and safety justifications.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the Iowa tax statute should be upheld as constitutional because Kraft failed to meet the heavy burden required for a facial challenge, which demands showing that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. Chief Justice Rehnquist distinguished this case from Japan Line, noting that here the tax was imposed on a domestic corporation, and the Executive Branch filed an amicus brief urging the tax be sustained, unlike in Japan Line where the tax was on a foreign entity and the U.S. was neutral. He argued that the Iowa tax does not favor Iowa subsidiaries, and while it may favor other-state domestic subsidiaries over foreign ones, the absence of a 'selfish motive' to favor local commerce is a strong indicator against a Commerce Clause violation. He contended that the record was largely devoid of evidence to suggest Iowa's taxing scheme systematically discouraged foreign commerce. He questioned the assumption that a corporation's foreign domicile necessarily reflects engagement in foreign commerce, noting that foreign-domiciled corporations might have minimal foreign activity, making any purported effect on foreign commerce absurd. He further doubted whether dividend payments from a 'foreign' subsidiary operating exclusively in the United States could genuinely be characterized as 'foreign commerce.' He concluded that Iowa's tax scheme does not result in foreign commerce being systematically subject to higher tax burdens than domestic commerce. The deduction Iowa offers for domestic subsidiary dividends, he argued, simply avoids the near certainty of double taxation on domestic earnings (once at the subsidiary level and again at the parent level), a situation not evidenced for foreign earnings. Finally, he stated that administrative efficiency is a legitimate state interest, and Iowa's reliance on the federal taxing scheme rationally furthers this goal, thus satisfying Equal Protection Clause scrutiny.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the U.S. Supreme Court's commitment to protecting foreign commerce from discriminatory state taxation under the Foreign Commerce Clause. It clarified that facial discrimination is sufficient for a violation, even without a showing of direct local economic favoritism, recognizing the broader national implications, such as potential international retaliation. The decision sets a high bar for states attempting to justify discriminatory tax schemes based on administrative convenience, requiring them to demonstrate the absence of reasonable, less discriminatory alternatives. This ruling serves as a strong precedent for future challenges to state tax laws that differentiate between domestic and foreign entities, mandating careful scrutiny to ensure compliance with constitutional principles safeguarding foreign trade.
