In the Matter of Orvis Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant,
v.
Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York et al., Respondents, and Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Appellant-Respondent.
In the Matter of Vermont Information Processing, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York, Respondent, and Commissioner of Taxation and Finance of the State of New York, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued April 27, 1995.
Decided June 14, 1995.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany (Daniel Smirlock, Jerry Boone and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for appellant-respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Brann & Isaacson (George S. Isaacson and David W. Bertoni, of the Maine Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Buffalo (Paul R. Comeau and Robert D. Plattner of counsel), for respondent-appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Dennis C. Vacco, Albany (Daniel Smirlock, Jerry Boone, Peter H. Schiff and Victoria A. Graffeo of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.
DeGraff, Foy, Holt-Harris, Mealey & Kunz, Albany (James H. Tully, Jr., and Peter G. Barber of counsel), for Vermont Information Processing, Inc., respondent in the second above-entitled proceeding.
Alan Friedman and June T. Summers, of the District of Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, for Miltistate Tax Commission, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE and SMITH concur with Judge LEVINE; Judge BELLACOSA dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge CIPARICK concurs.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
LEVINE, J.
On these appeals, the State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance seeks to overturn two decisions of the Appellate Division1 holding that Vermont vendors of products purchased by New Yorkers for use in this State were immunized from the duty to collect State compensating use taxes (Tax Law § 1110) under the Commerce Clause (US Const, art I, § 8) of the Federal...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
