NATIONAL MINES CORP. v. CARYL, TAX COMMISSIONER OF WEST VIRGINIA
No. 89-337.
Decided June 28, 1990
Per Curiam.
Petitioner National Mines Corp. (National) is principally-engaged in the business of producing and selling coal. Among its other activities, National mines coal in Kentucky and Pennsylvania and sells it wholesale in West Virginia. During the period relevant here, West Virginia imposed a gross receipts tax on wholesale sales of tangible property. W. Va. Code § ll-13-2c (1983). Local producers were subject to taxes on their production activities, but exempt from the tax on wholesale activities. § 11-13-2.
On December 22, 1980, the State Tax Department of West Virginia assessed $475,345.02 in business and occupation tax (plus interest and penalties) for the period January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1979, on National’s wholesale sales of coal in West Virginia. National filed a petition for reassessment, asserting that the tax violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. The State Tax Commissioner upheld the assessment, concluding that the tax was fairly apportioned, that the measure of the tax was reasonably related to the benefits conferred by the State, and that the tax did not discriminate against interstate commerce.
A few days before National appealed to the State Circuit Court, this Court issued its opinion in Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638 (1984), which held that the West Virginia business and occupation tax sought to be collected from petitioner was unconstitutional. National’s action was held in abeyance while the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals considered a similar challenge to the state tax in light of Armco. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Rose, 177 W. Va. 20, 850 S. E. 2d 531 (1986). After analyzing the retro-activity of Armco under a state-law test that it considered to “follow closely the analysis employed by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106-107 (1971),” 177 W. Va., at 23, n. 6, 350 S. E. 2d, at 534, n. 6, the court concluded that Armco applied prospectively only. The State Supreme Court thus permitted the State to collect the gross receipts taxes due for fiscal years prior to the date of decision in Armco. 177 W. Va., at 25-26, 350 S. E. 2d, at 536-537.
The State Circuit Court in this case followed Ashland Oil to uphold the State’s collection of the assessed taxes. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused to consider National’s petition for appeal.
In its petition for certiorari to this Court, National contends, among other claims, that the state court erred in following Ashland Oil’s nonretroactivity decision and allowing the State to enforce an unconstitutional tax statute. We agree. For the reasons stated today in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Caryl, ante, p. 916, we hold that Armco applies retroactively under the reasoning of either the plurality or the dissent in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167 (1990). Because the State Circuit Court failed to consider the constitutionality of the taxes assessed against National in light of our decision in Armco, we grant the petition for cer-tiorari, reverse the judgment of the State Circuit Court, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.