Skip to content


State Tax Commission of Utah Vs. Pacific State Cast Iron Pipe Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number372 U.S. 605
AppellantState Tax Commission of Utah
RespondentPacific State Cast Iron Pipe Co.
Excerpt:
state tax commission of utah v. pacific state cast iron pipe co. - 372 u.s. 605 (1963) u.s. supreme court state tax commission of utah v. pacific state cast iron pipe co., 372 u.s. 605 (1963) state tax commission of utah v. pacific state cast iron pipe co. no. 178 argued march 20, 1963 decided april 1, 1963 372 u.s. 605 per curiam. respondent, a nevada corporation qualified to do business in utah, manufactures castiron pipe and related items in provo, utah, and sells its products throughout the western states. prices set by respondent are for the goods delivered at a specific job site, and interstate delivery is usually made by common carrier or in respondent's own equipment. the sales here involved occurred in a different manner......
Judgment:
State Tax Commission of Utah v. Pacific State Cast Iron Pipe Co. - 372 U.S. 605 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court State Tax Commission of Utah v. Pacific State Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605 (1963)

State Tax Commission of Utah v. Pacific State Cast Iron Pipe Co.

No. 178

Argued March 20, 1963

Decided April 1, 1963

372 U.S. 605

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, a Nevada corporation qualified to do business in Utah, manufactures castiron pipe and related items in Provo, Utah, and sells its products throughout the Western States. Prices set by respondent are for the goods delivered at a specific job site, and interstate delivery is usually made by common carrier or in respondent's own equipment. The sales here involved occurred in a different manner. In each case the material was manufactured to meet the specifications of specific outofstate jobs. The contract called for outofstate shipment, and respondent set a destination price which included the going common carrier freight charges between the two points involved. But delivery was made

Page 372 U. S. 606

and title passed to the purchaser at respondent's foundry in Provo. The purchaser then transported the pipe with its own equipment to the predetermined outofstate destination. The common carrier tariff was credited to the purchaser.

The Utah Tax Commission imposed upon respondent a sales tax deficiency covering these sales.

The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the Tax Commission, on the grounds that the certainty of interstate shipment made the imposition of the tax on these shipments unconstitutional under the Commerce clause. 13 Utah 2d 113, 369 P.2d 123. We reverse its judgment on the authority of International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340 , 322 U. S. 345 , which holds on facts close to those of this case that a State may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the State.

Reversed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //