In The
Supreme Court of the United States
F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY
v.
TAXATION
and Revenue Department of New Mexico
Decided June 29, 1982
Justice O’Connor, Dissenting
| Topic: Economic Activity* | Court vote: 6–3 | |
Click any Justice for detail Joining O'Connor opinion:  Justice BLACKMUN  Justice REHNQUIST | ||
| Citation: 458 U.S. 354 | Docket: 80–1745 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at the Library of Congress or Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting.
The $39.9 million in dividend income at issue in this case was earned by four foreign subsidiaries of F. W. Woolworth Co.: F. W. Woolworth GmbH (Germany), F. W. Woolworth, Ltd. (Canada), F. W. Woolworth, S. A. de C. V. Mexico (Mexico), and F. W. Woolworth Co., Ltd. (England). F. W. Woolworth Co. wholly owned its German, Canadian, and Mexican subsidiaries, and had a 52.7% interest in its English subsidiary. During the tax year in question, the subsidiaries apparently operated somewhat autonomously in their respective markets, but "mail, telephone, and teletype communication between the upper echelons of management of the parent and the subsidiaries" was " frequent.'" Ante at 458 U. S. 368 (footnote omitted) (quoting App. to Juris.Statement 34a). Moreover,
[d]ecisions about major financial decisions, such as the amount of dividends to be paid by the subsidiaries and the creation of substantial debt, had to be approved by the parent,
and "Woolworth's published financial statements, such as its annual reports, were prepared on a consolidated basis." Ante at 458 U. S. 368 -39 (citations and footnotes omitted).
These controlled subsidiaries, operating in geographically diverse markets in the same line of business as F. W. Woolworth itself, were simply not "unrelated," [ Footnote 2/1 ] "discrete business enterprise[s]," [ Footnote 2/2 ] "hav[ing] nothing to do with the activities" [ Footnote 2/3 ] of F. W. Woolworth in New Mexico. Because I disagree with the redefinition of the limits of a unitary business adopted today by the Court, and for the reasons expressed in my dissent in No. 80-2015, ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, ante p. 458 U. S. 331, which was argued in tandem with this case, I respectfully dissent.
Notes
[ Footnote 2/1 ]
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U. S. 425, 445 U. S. 439 (1980).
[ Footnote 2/2 ]
Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U. S. 207, 447 U. S. 224 (1980).
[ Footnote 2/3 ]
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, supra, at 445 U. S. 442.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.