|
Link to Briefs, Decision, and Orders
in Cuno v.
DaimlerChrysler
News and Developments
September 22, 2006
Sixth Circuit Orders Dismissal of Case
Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued
an order that the case finally be dismissed.
May 15, 2006
Supreme Court Issues Decision in Favor of DaimlerChrysler
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion finding in favor of DaimlerChrysler on jurisditional
grounds. Specifically the Court found that Cuno and the taxpayer plaintiffs did not have
standing to challenge the franchise tax credit at issue in the case.
Read the Court's Opinion. Also available is
the Concurring Opinion of Justice Ginsberg and the
Court's Syllabus and Case Synopsis.
March 1, 2006
Oral Arguments Heard
Oral arguments were heard Cuno case.
Transcript of the oral argument
December 19, 2005
Merit Briefing Underway
The merit briefs in the United States Supreme Court are starting to be filed in the Cuno case. The
State of Ohio's brief
was filed December 5, 2005
September 27, 2005
Supreme Court Accepts Cert in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler case
The United States Supreme Court announced on Tuesday September 27 that it had
accepted certiorari for the State of Ohio and
DaimlerChrysler petitions.
The Court did not rule on the
Cuno petition. The announcement reads as follows:
WILKINS, TAX COMM'R, OH, ET AL. V. CUNO, CHARLOTTE, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. In
addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the
parties are directed to brief and argue the following question:
Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohio's investment
tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5733.33.
The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral
argument.
August 24, 2005
Certiorari Reply Briefs Filed
Documents filed in the United States Supreme Court during the week of August 15 include:
These documents are of poor quality but should print out in readable form.
July 27, 2005
Certiorari Reply Brief Date Extended
The reply briefs -- to the petitions for writs of certiorari filed by DaimlerChrysler and the State
of Ohio -- were originally due on July 20 and July 22, but an extension has been granted and the
briefs are now to be filed by August 18, 2005.
June 24, 2005
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Opposition Briefs Filed
The Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler case is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on petitions for
writs of certiorari which request the Court to accept jurisdiction over the case. The stance of the
case is as follows:
The DaimlerChrysler Petition. DaimlerChrysler has
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari,
asking the Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals finding of
unconstitutionality of an investment tax credit taken against the State of Ohio's
corporate franchise tax. Reply briefs due July 20, 2005.
The State of Ohio Petition. State of Ohio
has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on essentially the same grounds as the
DaimlerChrysler petition. Reply briefs due July 22, 2005.
Cuno and Other Plaintiffs Petition. The plaintiffs in the
original action, including Charlotte Cuno, have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari,
asking the Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals finding upholding the
constitutionality of an exemption from the personal property tax imposed by Ohio municipalities.
Both DaimlerChrysler and the State
of Ohio have filed briefs in opposition to the
petition for writ of certiorari filed by Cuno and the other plaintiffs.
April 25, 2005
Court Extends Stay in Cuno Case
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has extended the stay of their order in Cuno v.
DaimlerChrysler until June 17, 2005. The orginal stay was issued on January 31, 2005 and was to
run until the Supreme Court disposed of the case, or if a petition for certiorari was
not filed, until 90 days after the merit decision was issued. The State of Ohio, however,
received an extension to file its petition for certiorari from the United States Supreme Court so the stay has been extended
accordingly. Full text of the stay order from the 6th Circuit.
Februry 14, 2005
Ohio Department of Taxation Information on Tax Credits
The Ohio Department of Taxation has released information addressing questions the Ohio Department of Taxation has received regarding
Ohio's tax credit for purchases of new manufacturing machinery and equipment for use in
Ohio in light of the 6th Circuit stay issued in Cuno v.
DaimlerChrysler. According to the information release, taxpayers may continue to claim (i) the Ohio tax credit for such new
manufacturing machinery and equipment as provided by Ohio Revised Code sections 5733.33 and 5747.31 and (ii) all other tax credits that
the Ohio Department of Taxation directly or indirectly administers.
Ohio Department of Taxation Corporate Franchise
Tax Information Release February 2005.
January 31, 2005
Sixth Circuit Issues Stay in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler Case
On January 31, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a
stay of its mandate in the case of Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc. The stay is
in effect until the Supreme Court disposes of the case, or if a petition for certiorari is
not filed, until 90 days after the decision was issued. This means that the
manufacturing machinery and equipment franchise tax credit that was found to violate the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by the Court of Appeals is still in effect.
Individuals within the Department of Taxation have stated that if the mandate were stayed,
the department would continue to administer the credit. This means that taxpayers can
continue to claim the credit on their franchise tax returns pending final disposition of the case.
Link to full text of Court's stay
January 18, 2005
Rehearing Denied by 6th Circuit in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler
In an order filed with the clerk on January 18, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied a
request to rehear the case en banc. The entry states that the Court believes the issues raised in the request were adequately
addressed in the Court's original decision. Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, No. 01-3960 (6th Cir., January 18, 2005).
In a decision issued in early September, a three-judge panel of the Court held that Ohio’s investment tax credit
against the franchise tax impermissibly favored investment in Ohio over investment outside Ohio, thereby violating the dormant commerce
clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court had also held that property tax incentives provided to enterprises that located new or
expanded facilities in Ohio did not violate either the Commerce or Due Process clauses of the federal constitution.
The parties now have 90 days in which to seek review by the United States
Supreme Court. If a petition for review is filed, the Court will decide whether to accept the appeal. If the appeal is
accepted, then the matter will be briefed and argued to the Court. If the Court refuses to accept the case, the
matter will be remanded to the trial court for disposition. Text of rehearing denial order
October 19, 2004
Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler Amended by 6th Circuit
On Tuesday, October 19, 2004, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued an amended decision in
Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, which held Ohio's franchise tax credit for new manufacturing machinery and equipment to be invalid.
The two changes that were made involve the addition of a footnote at the end of the last paragraph
on page five referring to a law review article; and a textual reference to the same article in the first paragraph on page seven.
These two changes have no impact on the court's decision or its reasoning.
Under the local court rules, this is considered to be a change that does not "substantially modify" the panel's
original decision. Consequently, the motions for reconsideration or for a hearing en banc remain before the court and do not need to be refiled.
This amended decision is not a mandate and enforcement of the credit is not yet enjoined.
Documents related to the Cuno case include:
For additional information please contact Mark Engel at 614.227.2327 or by email at
mengel@bricker.com or
Anne Marie Sferra at 614.227.2394 or by
email at asferra@bricker.com. Bricker & Eckler is amicus curiae counsel
on behalf of the Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
|
