City of Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America

1958-04-07
Share:

Headline: Michigan may tax private contractors for possessing federal-owned materials, as the Court allows state personal-property-style levies on companies holding government property used for private gain.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows states to tax contractors possessing federal-owned materials used for private gain.
  • Means some tax costs may be passed to the federal Government through contract pricing.
  • Encourages states to assess taxes against possessors rather than against federal title
Topics: state taxation, federal tax immunity, government contracts, property taxes

Summary

Background

A private company, Murray Corporation, built airplane parts under subcontracts from two prime contractors working for the United States. The subcontracts said that when the company received partial payments, title to work in process and materials vested in the United States even though Murray kept possession. On January 1, 1952, Detroit and Wayne County assessed personal property taxes that included the value of those materials. Murray paid under protest and sued for a refund; the District Court and Court of Appeals ruled for Murray before the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The main question was whether Michigan’s tax, assessed against Murray for possessing materials to which the United States held title, violated federal immunity from state taxation. The majority looked at how the tax operated in practice rather than its label. The Court said the tax was imposed on Murray, a private party using government-owned property for its own private gain, not directly on the United States or on federal property. The majority relied on related decisions and noted there was no discrimination against the Government and no clear interference with federal functions. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with that view.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, states can impose taxes on private businesses that possess or use federal-owned materials in their operations, even when title rests with the Government. The opinion notes the Government may feel some economic burden and that Congress remains the proper body to set broader policy for contractors and state taxes.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented, arguing the taxed items were federal property and that treating an ad valorem property tax as a user or possessory tax blurs important legal distinctions and weakens immunity protections.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases