has received them." On this interpretation the
Supreme Court sustained the tax. Obviously, other things being equal,
there is little difference between a tax on receiving and a tax on
possession a moment later. 305 U.S. 380 (1939). In Felt & Tarrant
Manufacturing Co. _v._ Gallagher, 306 U.S. 62 (1939), a California use
tax was upheld applicable to a nonresident corporation which solicited
orders from California purchasers through agents for whom it hired
offices in the State and took orders subject to the vendor's approval.
In Nelson _v._ Sears, Roebuck & Company and Nelson _v._ Montgomery Ward
& Company, 312 U.S. 359 and 373 (1941) it was held that a foreign
corporation which maintained retail stores in Iowa could be validly
required to collect an Iowa use tax in respect of mail orders sent by
Iowa purchasers to out-of-state branches of the corporation and filled
by direct shipment by mail or common carrier from those branches to the
purchasers. In General Trading Company _v._ State Tax Commission, 322
U.S. 335 (1944), also involving the Iowa tax, it was held that a company
carrying on no operations in Iowa other than the solicitation of orders
by traveling salesmen was liable for collection of the tax on goods sold
to Iowa residents, even though the corporation was not licensed to do
business in the State and the orders were forwarded for acceptance to
Minnesota where they were filled by direct shipment to Iowa customers.
[601] 309 U.S. 33 (1940).
[602] Ibid. 53-54.
[603] Ibid. 57, citing Ficklen _v._ Shelby County Taxing District, 145
U.S. 1 (1892); Howe Machine Co. _v._ Gage, 100 U.S. 676 (1880); and
Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919). In the first it was held that
the Robbins case did not apply to a firm of agents and brokers
maintaining an office and samples throughout the year in the taxing
district. The other two cases were totally irrelevant.
[604] 309 U.S. 70 and 430.
[605] Ibid. 414.
[606] 322 U.S. 327 (1944).
[607] Ibid. 330.
[608] Ibid. 332.
[609] 327 U.S. 416 (1946).
[610] Ibid. 417-418.
[611] Ibid. 435.
[612] Memphis Steam Laundry _v._ Stone, 342 U.S. 389 (1952).
[613] Norton Co. _v._ Dept. of Revenue, 340 U.S. 534 (1951), although
decided by a closely divided Court, further confirms this impression.
[614] 9 Wheat. 1, 217-219 (1824).
[615] Smith _v._ Turner (Passenger Cases), 7 How. 283 (1849).
[616] Henderson _v._ Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); New York
|