## Facts

- Washington enacted a 1935 excise tax law imposing a 2% retail sales tax on in-state retail sales of tangible personal property.
- The same law imposed a 2% “compensating” use tax on the in-state use of tangible personal property purchased at retail outside Washington after April 30, 1935, measured by purchase price plus transportation costs.
- To prevent double taxation and equalize burdens, the use tax did not apply if the item’s sale or use had already been taxed at a rate equal to or above 2% under Washington law or another state’s law; if another state’s tax was lower, Washington imposed only the difference.
- Contractors and subcontractors constructing the Grand Coulee Dam purchased machinery and supplies at retail in other states and brought them into Washington for use on the project.
- The Tax Commission assessed a 2% use tax totaling $18,423.78 on approximately $921,189.34 in property costs (including transportation), and demanded payment.
- The taxpayers contended the use tax, as applied to goods purchased out of state and used in Washington, violated the Commerce Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s 2% use tax on tangible personal property purchased out of state and used within Washington violates the Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the three-judge district court and upheld the tax.
- The Court held Washington could tax the local use of goods after the interstate journey ended and the goods became part of the state’s general mass of property.
- The Court concluded the tax was nondiscriminatory because it operated to equalize the tax burden between in-state retail purchases (sales tax) and out-of-state retail purchases brought in for use (use tax), with credits for taxes paid elsewhere.
- The Court rejected the argument that limiting the tax trigger to retail purchases transformed it into a tax on out-of-state sales rather than a tax on local use.
- The Court stated that legislative motives do not invalidate a tax that is otherwise constitutional in structure and operation.

## Legal Principles

- A state may impose a tax on the in-state use of tangible personal property after interstate transportation is complete and the property has come to rest within the state.
- A use tax that complements a sales tax and provides credits for equivalent taxes paid to other jurisdictions is consistent with the Commerce Clause when it does not discriminate against interstate commerce or condition liability on the interstate movement itself.
- The constitutional analysis turns on the tax’s legal incidence and operational effect, not on labels (property tax vs. excise) or asserted legislative purposes, when the tax is otherwise within the state’s taxing power.

## Conclusion

Washington’s compensating use tax was sustained because it taxed a local incident—use after the property entered and rested in the state—while operating evenhandedly to equalize the tax burden between in-state and out-of-state retail purchases without discriminating against interstate commerce.


Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577 (1937)