From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont
United States Supreme Court
445 U.S. 425, 100 S. Ct. 1223 (1980)
Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil) (plaintiff) was a New York corporation that produced and sold petroleum products. Mobil owned several subsidiary companies that were incorporated in foreign countries. Because Mobil had a marketing operation in Vermont, it was required to pay Vermont income tax on the portion of its income attributable to Vermont. To determine a company’s state tax liability, Vermont applied a three-factor apportionment formula to the company’s net income. Mobil’s net income included income received in the form of dividends from its foreign subsidiaries. On its Vermont income-tax returns, Mobil classified the foreign dividend income as nonapportionable and left that income out of its net income. The Vermont Department of Taxes (the department) determined that the foreign dividend income was apportionable and assessed a deficiency against Mobil for unpaid taxes for the years 1970 to 1972. Mobil challenged the assessment, arguing that taxation of the foreign dividend income violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The commissioner of taxes of Vermont (defendant) upheld the department’s assessment. Mobil sought review in state court. The superior court reversed the commissioner’s determination, holding that Vermont could not tax Mobil’s foreign dividend income. The superior court reasoned that New York, Mobil’s domicile, could tax the entirety of the foreign dividend income, and therefore, it would be unconstitutional for Vermont to also tax the dividends. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the superior court, holding that Mobil’s foreign dividend income was sufficiently connected to Vermont to allow Vermont to apportion the income. The Vermont Supreme Court also believed that multiple taxation of the income was unlikely, as New York had not previously taxed the dividend income. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
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.