recognizing that McKesson’s due process principles are relevant to vindicate a taxpayer’s rights under the Uniformity Clause, but remanding for a determination as to whether the challenged mercantile license tax was unconstitutional
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that McKesson’s due process principles are relevant to vindicate a taxpayer’s rights under the Uniformity Clause, but remanding for a determination as to whether the challenged mercantile license tax was unconstitutional
- remanding case to appellate court because of failure to consider and meet due process concerns of McKesson
- “The result of the prospectivity decision was that the tax had not been unlawful when collected. There being no illegal collection to be remedied, the rule of McKesson did not apply.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
Because the majority does for Appellants in this case what it refused to do for the Appellants in American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. McNulty, 528 Pa. 212 , 596 A.2d 784 , that is, provide to Appellants “meaningful back-ward looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation” as required by the United States Supreme Court in McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Fla., 496 U.S. 18 , 110 S.Ct. 2238 , 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990), I concur in the result.
I agree that this matter must be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for the resolution of the constitutional issues. If, however, the instant tax is determined to be unconstitutional, I believe that Appellants will more than likely be entitled to the full refunds they are seeking, pursuant to McKesson, as discussed in my dissent *240 ing opinion in the companion case decided today of American Trucking.
LARSEN, J., joins this concurring opinion.