While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a “use tax” on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.
Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. Pp. 579-593.
(a) There is no legislative history, and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive on the part of the Minnesota Legislature in enacting the tax. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 distinguished. Pp. 579-580.
(b) But by creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State’s tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. When a State so singles out the press, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from imposing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, thus undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. Moreover, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation. Pp. 581-585.
And this one was struck down despite the legislature not having censorious motives. The IRS rule on non-profits IS actually meant to censor.
A similar case is about to come up regarding the 2nd amendment. The Cook County board wants to get cute and tax guns out of existence:
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle submitted a proposed budget on Thursday that would impose a tax of a nickel for each bullet and $25 for each firearm sold in the nation’s second-largest county, which encompasses Chicago.
Preckwinkle’s office estimates the tax will generate about $1 million a year, money that would be used for various county services including medical care for gunshot victims. Law enforcement officials would not have to pay the tax, but the office said it would apply to 40 federally licensed gun dealers in the county.
Through last week, the city reported 409 homicides this year compared to 324 during the same period in 2011. Although the violence still doesn’t approach the nearly 900 homicides a year Chicago averaged in the 1990s, officials say gang activity was largely to blame for a rash of shootings earlier this year.
Preckwinkle insists the ordinance is far more about addressing gun violence than raising money for a county that faces a budget shortfall of more than $260 million.
“The violence in Cook County is devastating and the wide availability of ammunition only exacerbates the problem,” she told the board Thursday.
So this tax’s very purpose is to burden 2nd amendment rights.