United States v. State of Maryland and Louis L. Goldstein, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of Maryland

636 F.2d 73, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 10939
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 31, 1980
Docket80-1298
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 636 F.2d 73 (United States v. State of Maryland and Louis L. Goldstein, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. State of Maryland and Louis L. Goldstein, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of Maryland, 636 F.2d 73, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 10939 (4th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The State of Maryland appeals from an order granting summary judgment to the United States in a suit in which the United States sought and obtained a declaration that 4 U.S.C. § 113, as added by P.L. 95-67 (July 19, 1977), prohibits Maryland from levying state and local income taxes against members of Congress from states other than Maryland who reside in Maryland for the purpose of attending sessions of Congress. In addition to granting a declaratory judgment, the district court enjoined collection of Maryland income taxes.

Maryland interprets its tax laws to permit state and local taxation of any member of Congress who maintains a place of abode within the State for more than six *75 months of the taxable year. See Md. Code Ann., Art. 81, § 279(i). By its terms, 4 U.S.C. § 113 prohibits any state in which a member of Congress maintains a place of abode for the purpose of attending sessions of Congress from treating him as a resident of that state for income tax purposes.

Maryland argues that the United States lacks standing to bring this suit and that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, deprived the district court of jurisdiction to grant declaratory or injunctive relief. On the merits, the State contends that Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution in enacting Public Law 95-67. Having considered the record of the proceedings below, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel before this court, we affirm for reasons sufficiently stated by the district court. United States v. Maryland, 488 F.Supp. 347 (D.Md.1980).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. County of Nassau, Ny
79 F. Supp. 2d 190 (E.D. New York, 2000)
Operation Rescue National v. United States
975 F. Supp. 92 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
United States v. Benton
729 F. Supp. 671 (W.D. Missouri, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
636 F.2d 73, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 10939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-state-of-maryland-and-louis-l-goldstein-comptroller-of-ca4-1980.