Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 6/13/1988

South Carolina v. Baker

Citations

  • 485 U.S. 505
  • 108 S. Ct. 1355
  • 99 L. Ed. 2d 592
  • 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1873

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1988 United States Supreme Court case

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that section 310(b)(1) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) does not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

TEFRA continued the federal tax exemption for state bond interest as long as the bond is registered, with each seller and buyer being recorded for audit purposes. Anonymous bearer bonds , which often were used in money laundering , were no longer exempt, however. South Carolina sued to have the federal tax advantage restored for all their bonds.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The US Supreme Court also ruled that a nondiscriminatory federal tax on the interest earned on state bonds does not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, which permitted the federal taxation of interest income on bonds issued by state governments in the United States . The Supreme Court stated that the contrary decision of the Court in the case of _Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. _ (1895) had been "effectively overruled by subsequent case law."

Sources

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Sources")
]

  • Trujillo, P. A. (1988). "Municipal Bond Financing after South Carolina v. Baker and the Tax Reform Act of 1986: Can State Sovereignty Reemerge". Tax Lawyer. 42: 147. ISSN  0040-005X .
  • Wyatt, Terrence M.; Sparkman, William E. (1988). "The United States Congress Can Tax Interest on State Bonds: South Carolina v. Baker". West's Education Law Reporter. 48 (1): 1–6. ISSN  0744-8716 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

United States constitutional tax law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&oldid=1351345353 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

South Carolina v. Baker

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a federal tax law was constitutional where it “regulates state activities” and does not “seek to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties”
  • noting that the statute\covers not only state bonds but also bonds issued by the United States and private corporations\
  • noting \the possibility that the Tenth Amendment might set some limits on Congress' power to compel States to regulate on behalf of federal interests\
  • noting “the possibility that the Tenth Amendment might set some limits on Congress’ power to compel States to regulate on' behalf of federal interests”
  • noting that tax's entire financial burden may fall on government without rendering tax unconstitutional
  • noting that tax’s entire financial burden may fall on government without rendering tax unconstitutional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Other cases named South Carolina v. Baker

15 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.