Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY. (06/25/56)

June 25, 1956

COMMONWEALTH, APPELLANT,
v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY.



Appeal, No. 21, May T., 1956, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Commonwealth Docket, 1953, No. 215, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Eastman Kodak Company. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused August 13, 1956.

COUNSEL

Edward Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, with him Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for appellant.

Sanford D. Beecher, with him Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for appellee.

Before Stern, C.j., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 385 Pa. Page 608]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL

The Commonwealth sought to tax defendant, a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce, on its net income for the year 1951 under the Corporation Income Tax Law of (December 27) 1951.*fn1 The lower Court held that the resettlement and imposition of the tax by the fiscal officers of the Commonwealth violated the Interstate Commerce Clause since it imposed a tax on the defendant's privilege of engaging in interstate

[ 385 Pa. Page 609]

    commerce. From a judgment entered in favor of Eastman Kodak Company the Commonwealth has appealed.

Defendant is a business corporation which is engaged in interstate commerce. It is organized under the laws of New Jersey and has its business office and manufacturing plant in Rochester, N.Y. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling photographic equipment and supplies and certain other products. All manufacturing of business products and research activities are performed wholly outside of Pennsylvania. It maintains no office or place of business in Pennsylvania; it is not registered to do business in Pennsylvania; it makes no contracts in Pennsylvania. All of its assets are owned, held and used by it wholly outside of Pennsylvania, with the exception of 10 automobiles which are used by defendant's employes who solicit business mostly in Pennsylvania. Five of those automobiles were used regularly in Pennsylvania by defendant's salesmen; the remainder were used partly in Pennsylvania and partly in other States. Those 10 automobiles, valued at $13,569., were the only tangible property of the defendant located in Pennsylvania.*fn2 The value of all tangible and intangible property and real estate of the defendant outside of Pennsylvania was $533,370,496.

Defendant employed, in the year 1951, three salesmen who resided in Pennsylvania, one of whom performed all of his services in Pennsylvania; and 11 technical representatives who resided in Pennsylvania and who demonstrated to dealers and other users of photographic products the proper method of using defendant's products. Four of these employes performed all

[ 385 Pa. Page 610]

    their services in Pennsylvania; the other 7 performed their services in Pennsylvania and in other States. In every instance defendant's products were shipped by mail or by common carrier into Pennsylvania from outside the State. All of Eastman's employes who perform any services in Pennsylvania are connected with and sent out, and all of their activities are supervised and directed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.