Tag Archive | Comptroller v. Wynne

May 2019 Maryland Certiorari Grants

The Court of Appeals today issued its first certiorari grants since Judge Brynja Booth took the bench last month. There were a total of five grants. They include a sequel to Comptroller v. Wynne, where in 2015 the Supreme Court, affirmed a Court of Appeals decision striking down portions of the state tax code as violating the “dormant” commerce clause. The cases are below, with the questions presented and links to the Court of Special Appeals opinions under review. Read More…

Comptroller v. Wynne: A Rough Day for Maryland Localities

By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)

At long last, the Supreme Court today issued its ruling affirming the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Comptroller v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147 (2013). The Supreme Court’s opinion is here. Justice Alito wrote for the 5-to-4 majority, holding that Maryland’s income tax scheme violates the dormant commerce clause. In the kind of unusual lineup we expect in dormant commerce clause cases, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented.

The decision could cost Maryland and its localities $200 million in tax refunds. Although the taxpayers were disputing their Howard County income tax, the hardest-hit locality is Montgomery County, which has many residents who earn income in Washington, D.C. or Virginia.

For our previous coverage of Comptroller v. Wynne, click here. The filings (including some excellent briefing by Hogan Lovells in a tough case) are available here.

Comptroller v. Wynne: Will Tuesday Be the Day?

By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)

Only recently has the media been focusing on a sneaky-big Supreme Court case out of Maryland, Comptroller v. Wynne. Just last week, Bill Turque at the Washington Post noted the potentially major consequences in Maryland and beyond. The question is whether Maryland tax law, in denying a county income tax credit for income tax paid in other states on out-of-state income, discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the so-called “dormant” or “negative” commerce clause. Read More…

Supreme Court to Review Maryland Tax Case

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne,  431 Md. 147 (2013). The Order list is here. For prior blog coverage of Comptroller v. Wynne, see the following posts:

Solicitor General Urges SCOTUS to Reverse Court of Appeals in Comptroller v. Wynne

We previously reported in January that the Supreme Court of the United States requested the views of the Solicitor General of the United States as to whether to grant certiorari in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147 (2013). As reported today by Steve Lash at The Daily Record, the Solicitor General has filed a brief in support of the State’s petition.

The Solicitor General’s brief is available here. Below is the Solicitor General’s argument summary, from pages 6 and 7 of that brief: Read More…

SCOTUS Requests Views of Solicitor General in Comptroller v. Wynne

By Steve Klepper

In January of last year, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne,  431 Md. 147 (2013), held that Maryland tax law discriminated against interstate commerce by failing to allow a tax credit for certain “pass through” income for Subchapter S corporations. Judge McDonald wrote the majority opinion, and Judge Greene, joined by Judge Battaglia, dissented. In May, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, but it stayed its mandate pending the Comptroller’s filing of a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. SCOTUSblog has been tracking the case.

Today’s orders list from the United States Supreme Court included an order in Comptroller v. Wynne that “[t]he Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.” Though such a call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG) is far from a guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant review, it is an indication that the Supreme Court is taking the petition seriously. Read More…