California has performed a study that many of the companies that have closed down during COVID-19 are limited liability companies, with many partners who barely interact or know each other. California made many findings that due to the difficulties of COVID-19, the zoom environment, and the inefficiencies in the banking platforms and in the labor market, many nonresident corporations formed instead as partnerships and lured Californians who would otherwise be employees into being partners, with the hopes of riches, but with less labor protections (e.g., no ability to unionize, no routine wage payment timing). Some of these hardworking Californians were offered partnership in funds both to lock the Californians into a service contract but also, in some cases, to source funding from those Californians to help the partnership stay afloat (since the candidates would pay hefty amounts to buy their partnership interests).
In order to encourage the use of the C-corporation rather than the limited liability company model, California has passed a tax law, which provides as follows:
CA-1: Until such time as COVID-19 infects less than 1 in 10,000 persons on an annual basis, any partnership operating, in whole or in part, in California and deriving any income from sources in California, shall pay a tax of $1,000 per partner, regardless of whether the partner resides in California or is otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in California.
New York performed a study during the COVID-19 pandemic. As offices have shifted to a work-from-home structure, many residents of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Jersey are working partially or exclusively from their homes, instead of commuting into Manhattan for their jobs. Please assume that these individuals still use equipment (e.g., laptops) furnished from New York offices, are supported by New York support and IT staff, still identify as being a member of the New York office on business cards and e-mail signature lines, and sometimes travel to New York to conclude client deals or engage in client marketing activities. While these workers’ home states will now tax them on income taxes since they performed the services often exclusively at-home, without crediting any income taxed in any other state, New York does not wish to relinquish the tax revenues, and has passed the following law:
NY-2: Any person whose normal location of physical employment was within the State of New York prior to March 1, 2020 shall remain subject to income and payroll taxes in New York for no less than five years, as if they exclusively remained a New York resident, unless such person is terminated or resigns from the relevant employer.
Third, the Bruder Boot Company ("BBC") from your Assignment 1 is headquartered and operates in Texas. It sources many of its exotic leathers, including crocodile, from Louisiana, where the crocodiles are plentiful and often hunted for this purpose. The crocodiles grow in swamps that Louisiana protects and conserves at great cost, and the governor of Louisiana does not understand why a non-resident corporation should be able to send hunters to kill crocodiles in Louisiana and then export the skins to another state to sell high-end fashion, without paying Louisiana tax. To this end, the Louisiana legislature passed the following law:
LA-3: Any distributor or merchant who purchases, or attempts to purchase, in any calendar year, crocodile skin from a licensed Louisiana hunter shall pay a tax of $1,000 for each hunter so consulted.
Finally, Washington passed a law to regulate the concealed manner in which firearms may be carried within the state. Washington law provides that residents and nonresidents alike may apply for a concealed carry permit, but only if they undertake an insurance tax for the generalized harms that firearm violence may cause. To that end, Washington passes the following law:
WA-4: To offset the costs of improper firearm usage within the State of Washington, any person who seeks to carry a firearm in a concealed manner within the State of Washington must pay a $1,000 tax, regardless of whether he or she has paid a fee or tax to his or her residence state for a similar concealed carry permit in such state.
Please assess the constitutionality of the above laws. Please explain if any or all of the laws are unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause, but specifically analyze only the mandate that state taxes must be "fairly apportioned." Your rule could be : "A state tax law is unconstitutional as not fairly apportioned when…". Use the cases provided. Please do not write more than 2,200 words, and indicate your word count.