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
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§ion=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§ion=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§ion=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§ion=4 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)
United States constitutional tax law
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina_v._Baker&oldid=1351345353 "
United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court stubs
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 CourtListenerCited by
175 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 3,458×
- Gregory v. AshcroftSupreme Court· 1991-06-20· cited 1,325×
- New York v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1992-06-19· cited 1,301×
- Davis v. Michigan Department of the TreasurySupreme Court· 1989-03-28· cited 1,222×
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court· 1988-06-27· cited 1,208×
- Harper v. Virginia Department of TaxationSupreme Court· 1993-06-18· cited 1,200×
- Printz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1997-06-27· cited 937×
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.Supreme Court· 2018-05-14· cited 310×
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. HealySupreme Court· 1994-06-17· cited 291×
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New MexicoSupreme Court· 1989-04-25· cited 242×
- Reno v. CondonSupreme Court· 2000-01-19· cited 239×
- North Dakota v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1990-05-21· cited 227×
- Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection AgencyD.C. Circuit· 2004-09-01· cited 189×
- Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc.Fourth Circuit· 2002-12-13· cited 148×
- Haaland v. BrackeenSupreme Court· 2023-06-15· cited 138×
- Sanford J. Berger v. Samuel R. PierceSixth Circuit· 1991-05-20· cited 104×
- California State Board of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc.Supreme Court· 1989-06-12· cited 83×
- United States v. City of Columbia, Missouri Harold Boldt, Finance DirectorEighth Circuit· 1990-09-12· cited 77×
- Swanson v. PowersFourth Circuit· 1991-06-25· cited 76×
- Samuel Frank, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeSecond Circuit· 1996-03-14· cited 74×
Cites
34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court· 1985-04-15· cited 1,304×
- National League of Cities v. UserySupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 1,143×
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.Supreme Court· 1981-03-23· cited 1,109×
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 931×
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court· 1916-01-24· cited 844×
- South Dakota v. DoleSupreme Court· 1987-06-23· cited 678×
- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1895-04-08· cited 605×
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1926-01-11· cited 565×
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co.Supreme Court· 1937-12-06· cited 542×
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. WyomingSupreme Court· 1983-03-02· cited 504×
- Graves v. New York Ex Rel. O'KeefeSupreme Court· 1939-03-27· cited 450×
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1982-09-09· cited 446×
- Alabama v. King & BoozerSupreme Court· 1941-11-10· cited 391×
- United States v. City of DetroitSupreme Court· 1958-03-03· cited 312×
- Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi Ex Rel. KnoxSupreme Court· 1928-05-14· cited 287×
- Helvering v. GerhardtSupreme Court· 1938-05-23· cited 274×
- United States v. New MexicoSupreme Court· 1982-03-24· cited 272×
- South Carolina v. ReganSupreme Court· 1984-02-22· cited 251×
- Willcutts v. BunnSupreme Court· 1931-01-05· cited 241×
- Minor v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1969-12-08· cited 221×
Other cases named South Carolina v. Baker
15 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-12-07· cited 2×
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-12-07· cited 1×
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-02-23
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-10-05
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-10-05
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-10-13
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-10-13
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-11-02
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1987-11-02
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-03-07
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-03-07
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-05-16
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-05-16
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-06-13
- South Carolina v. BakerSupreme Court· 1988-06-13
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.