Mckesson Corporation v. Division Of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacc

496 U.S. 18 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Florida's (D) liquor excise tax scheme imposed taxes on manufacturers, distributors, and in some cases vendors of alcoholic beverages. It provided for preferential treatment of beverages that were manufactured from certain 'Florida-grown' citrus and other agricultural crops and then bottled in-state. In Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984), a similar preference scheme employed by the State of Hawaii was held to have violated the Commerce Clause because it had both the purpose and effect of discriminating in favor of local products. D revised its excise tax scheme and enacted new statutory provisions. D deleted the previous express preferences for 'Florida-grown' products and replaced them with special rate reductions for certain specified citrus, grape, and sugarcane products, all of which are commonly grown in Florida and used in alcoholic beverages produced there. P is a licensed wholesale distributor of alcoholic beverages whose products did not qualify for the rate reductions. In June 1986, P filed an application seeking a refund for taxes paid on the ground that the tax scheme was unlawful. Its application and P along with others brought suit in Florida state court. P sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against the continued enforcement of the discriminatory tax scheme. P also sought a refund in the amount of the excess taxes it had paid as a result of its disfavored treatment. The Florida trial court invalidated the discriminatory tax scheme. The court declined to order a refund or any other form of relief for the taxes previously paid and timely challenged under the discriminatory scheme. P appealed arguing that as a matter of both federal and state law, it was entitled at least to 'a refund of the difference between the disfavored product's tax rate and the favored product's tax rate.' The State Supreme affirmed but also refused to order a tax refund, declaring that 'the prospective nature of the rulings below was proper in light of the equitable considerations present in this case.' It held that D had collected the liquor tax in 'good faith reliance on a presumptively valid statute.' It also stated P would in all probability receive a windfall since the cost of the tax has likely been passed on to [its] customers. P appealed.