Firm Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Commerce Clause Restrictions in Compact Case

Firm Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Commerce Clause Restrictions in Compact Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

The firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over Michigan's retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact, asking the Court to consider whether the commerce clause permits a state to target out-of-state taxpayers for substantial retroactive tax liability, and the due process limitations on the retroactive imposition of taxes.

The firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &amp; Flom LLP has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over Michigan's retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact, asking the Court to consider whether the commerce clause permits a state to target out-of-state taxpayers for substantial retroactive tax liability, and the due process limitations on the retroactive imposition of taxes.

The firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &amp; Flom LLP has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over Michigan's retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact, asking the Court to consider whether the commerce clause permits a state to target out-of-state taxpayers for substantial retroactive tax liability, and the due process limitations on the retroactive imposition of taxes. The brief also says the Court of Appeals' judgment does not rest on an adequate and independent state ground, and should be reviewed because it is "deeply flawed" and has far-reaching effects.

The firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over Michigan's retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact, asking the Court to consider whether the commerce clause permits a state to target out-of-state taxpayers for substantial retroactive tax liability, and the due process limitations on the retroactive imposition of taxes. The brief also says the Court of Appeals' judgment does not rest on an adequate and independent state ground, and should be reviewed because it is "deeply flawed" and has far-reaching effects.