## Facts

- Miller Brothers Co. was a Delaware corporation operating a retail store in Wilmington, Delaware.
- It sold merchandise only at its Delaware store and did not accept mail or telephone orders.
- It advertised through Delaware newspapers and radio and mailed occasional circulars to former customers, including some Maryland residents.
- Maryland residents traveled to Delaware to purchase goods; the goods were either carried back by customers, shipped by common carrier to Maryland, or delivered into Maryland by Miller Brothers’ truck.
- Maryland imposed a use tax on in-state use, storage, or consumption of tangible personal property and required “every vendor” selling to Maryland residents to collect and remit the tax.
- Miller Brothers did not collect the tax; Maryland officials seized the company’s truck in Maryland and sought to hold it liable for use tax on all goods sold in Delaware to Maryland residents.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause permits Maryland to require an out-of-state retailer with no in-state presence (beyond limited delivery activity) to collect and remit Maryland use tax on goods sold in the retailer’s out-of-state store to Maryland residents.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals.
- The Court held Maryland could not impose a statutory duty on Miller Brothers to collect Maryland’s use tax because the required “definite link” or “minimum connection” between the state and the retailer was lacking.
- The Court treated seizure of property to enforce a tax-collection obligation unsupported by jurisdiction as a denial of due process.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires “some definite link, some minimum connection” between a state and the person, property, or transaction the state seeks to tax or regulate through tax enforcement.
- A state may tax its residents’ in-state use of property, but may not shift the obligation to collect that tax to an out-of-state seller absent sufficient jurisdictional contacts with the seller.
- General advertising that incidentally reaches in-state residents, coupled with limited delivery activity, does not necessarily create a constitutionally adequate nexus for imposing use-tax collection duties.
- A state may not impose on a vendor use-tax collection liability where the underlying transactions could not constitutionally be subjected to the state’s sales tax on the vendor.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Maryland’s attempt to compel a Delaware retailer to collect Maryland use tax on Delaware sales to Maryland residents violated due process because the retailer lacked the minimum connection with Maryland required to support that tax-collection duty.


Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)