Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois/Dissent Clark

by Tom C. Clark

United States Supreme Court

340 U.S. 534

Norton Company  v.  Department of Revenue of Illinois

 Argued: Dec. 6, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1951

Mr. Justice CLARK, dissenting in part.

I believe the respondent reasonably attributed all of the proceeds of petitioner's sales in Illinois to the company's local activities. I therefore agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that under the circumstances shipments sent directly to Illinois customers on orders sent directly to Worcester were subject to the tax.

As the Court points out, petitioner can avoid taxation on its direct sales only 'by showing that * * * (they) are dissociated from the local business and (are) interstate in nature. The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption.' Petitioner has failed to meet this burden. In fact Illinois has shown that petitioner's Chicago office is its only source of customer relationship in Illinois; that the Chicago office provides the sole means through which petitioner can be reached with process by Illinois courts in the event a customer is aggrieved; that the local office affords service to machines after sale, as well as replacement of machines which are defective; that it stands ready to receive complaints and to offer engineering and technical advice; and that these multitudinous activities give to petitioner a local character which is most helpful in all its Illinois operations. Surely the Court's conclusion, that 'Petitioner has not established that such services as were rendered by the Chicago office were not decisive factors in establishing and holding this market', applies with equal validity to the direct sales.

In maintaining a local establishment of such magnitude, petitioner has adopted the label of home-town merchant. After it has received the manifold advantages of that label, we should not give our sanction to its claim made at taxpaying time that with respect to direct sales it is only an itinerant drummer. For the foregoing and other reasons which need not be stated, I would affirm in its entirety the judgment below.

Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join in this opinion.

Notes