Freeman v. Hewit

Summary

The Court held that Indiana could not impose an unapportioned gross-receipts tax on proceeds from interstate sales of securities arranged through Indiana and New York brokers. The tax directly burdened the interstate sales themselves, and the fact that the securities were intangibles or that Indiana taxed local commerce similarly did not save it. Justice Douglas, dissenting, would have affirmed on the ground that the tax reached the trustee's local investment-management activity rather than the broker's interstate services; Justice Rutledge, concurring, criticized the Court's broad reasoning and would have focused on the risk of multiple taxation and an origin-state credit system.