If the legislature passed a law that enacted a tax on real estate transfers only on Black Americans, he asked, would she still argue that they’d have to go through the administrative process?īernhardt said that would be a different matter that raises discrimination and civil rights statutes. In questioning Bernhardt, Justice Steven Gould asked her a theoretical question. In this case, it’s invalid because it violates federal law.” It only applies, as this court has repeatedly described it, in a situation where the entirety of the law is invalid. “It doesn’t apply to even a taxpayer that alleges his or her constitutional rights were violated on an as-applied basis. “It does not apply to a run-of-the-mill tax case,” Friedman said.

Some of us might agree with you, I don’t know, but why should we consider it here,” Justice Brynja Booth asked, noting the law of exhausting tax court remedies.įriedman said there was a constitutional exception that applied to this case. Friedman, you make a lot of interesting constitutional arguments. The jurisdiction of the case was a major focus of their inquiries. “It looks like a law school exam question gone awry,” Friedman said of the law on digital ad taxes.Īs usual in arguments before the court, the judges had questions for both sides. He also said it targets speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment. In case, after case, after case, almost every case involving a constitutional challenge to a state tax has come up through that way since the establishment of the tax court,” Bernhardt said.īut Jeffrey Friedman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the tax is “very unconstitutional,” because it targets electronic commerce in violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, as well as out-of-state companies in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. “This court has repeatedly held that constitutional claims are to be presented to the tax court. Julia Bernhardt, an assistant attorney general who is defending the law, said the plaintiffs sought to bypass administrative procedures that the state has in place. The state comptroller is appealing the decision in a case brought by Verizon Media Inc. Constitution’s prohibition on state interference with interstate commerce. The court also held that the law violates the U.S. Last year a lower Maryland court ruled that the tax on digital advertising violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits discrimination against electronic commerce. Meanwhile, an attorney for the state appeared to surprise judges when she said Maryland has already collected some taxes from companies that voluntarily submitted revenues to the state under the tax aimed at Big Tech. (AP) - Attorneys debated the proper jurisdiction for settling a legal challenge to the first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising during arguments before Maryland’s highest court on Friday.

Maryland judiciary case searchy