From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission
South Carolina Supreme Court
437 S.E.2d 13, 313 S.C. 15, (1993)
Facts
Geoffrey, Inc. (plaintiff) was a subsidiary of Toys R Us, Inc., and was incorporated and headquartered in Delaware. Geoffrey owned trademarks and trade names used by Toys R Us. Toys R Us agreed to pay Geoffrey a 1 percent royalty from Toys R Us’s net sales for the use of Geoffrey’s trademarks. In 1985 Toys R Us opened stores in South Carolina. In 1986 and 1987, Toys R Us deducted the royalty payments it paid to Geoffrey from its South Carolina taxable income. The South Carolina Tax Commission (the commission) (defendant) allowed Toys R Us to take the deduction but determined that Geoffrey was required to pay state income tax on the royalty income from Toys R Us. According to South Carolina law, all foreign corporations that did business in the state were required to pay an annual state income tax. South Carolina defined doing business in the state as engaging in any activity for the purpose of financial gain. Geoffrey paid the taxes and filed a lawsuit in state court requesting a refund. To support its claim, Geoffrey argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution prevented South Carolina from taxing Geoffrey, because Geoffrey did not have a sufficient connection to the state. The state trial court held that Geoffrey was liable for the taxes, and Geoffrey appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harwell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
