Freeman v. Hewit

Summary

The Court held that Indiana could not impose its unapportioned gross-income tax on proceeds from interstate sales of securities because the tax directly burdened the interstate sales themselves. The fact that the securities were intangibles, that the trustee and securities were located in Indiana, and that comparable local commerce was also taxed did not save the levy under the Commerce Clause. Justice Douglas, dissenting, would have upheld the tax as reaching the trustee's local investment-management activity, while Justice Rutledge, concurring, agreed with the result but would have grounded it on the risk of multiple taxation rather than the tax's direct incidence.