Florida v. Mellon,
273 U.S. 12 (1927)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927)

Florida v. Mellon

No. ___, Original

Rule to show cause argued November 23, 1926

Rule discharged January 3, 1927

273 U.S. 12

1. To come within the original jurisdiction of this Court, a suit by a state must be for redress of a wrong, or enforcement of a right, susceptible of judicial redress or enforcement. P. 273 U. S. 16.

2. The federal inheritance tax law is constitutional, and must prevail over any conflicting provisions of state laws or constitutions. P. 273 U. S. 17.

3. The constitutional requirement of uniformity in excise taxation (Art. I, § 8, cl. 1) is satisfied when, by the provisions of a tax law, the rule of liability under it is the same in all parts of the United States. P. 273 U. S. 17.

4. The fact that the provisions of the federal act allowing deduction of state inheritance taxes in computing the federal tax cannot be availed of in Florida, since that state, by her constitution, is forbidden to tax inheritance, does not sustain an allegation that the federal tax will directly injure her revenue by inducing the withdrawal of property from the state. P. 273 U. S. 17.

5. A state can not, as parens patriae, represent her citizens in a suit to protect them from unconstitutional inequalities alleged to result from a federal tax law. P. 273 U. S. 18.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.