October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1413
Can Illinois tax a New York company for selling a business unit?
MeadWestvaco argues Illinois cannot tax the sale of its Lexis unit. The state claims the unit earned income in Illinois.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Brinkmann argued the lower court expanded the operational-function tax.
Mr. Barov stated Illinois taxes income earned by the Lexis unit in Illinois.
questions_detail
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
MeadWestvaco wants the Illinois tax on the Lexis sale struck down. The state wants to keep that tax revenue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
MeadWestvaco wants the Court to strike down the Illinois tax on the Lexis sale.
Illinois wants the Court to uphold the tax on the Lexis sale.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What each side says
MeadWestvaco argues the tax violates constitutional limits on state taxing power.
Illinois argues the tax targets income earned by the Lexis unit in Illinois.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if only the domicile state could impose the tax.
Justice Stevens asked if Illinois could tax a truck sale by a New York owner.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
Why it matters
This case defines state power to tax business sales. It affects how companies structure interstate transactions. It determines which state collects revenue from corporate divisions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.