Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState TaxationInsurance RegulationEqual Protection Clausestate taxationforeign corporationsdomestic corporations

Facts

Alabama taxed foreign life insurers at 3 percent and other foreign insurers at 4 percent on gross premiums from Alabama business, while domestic insurers paid only 1 percent on all types of insurance premiums. Foreign insurers could reduce, but never eliminate, the differential by investing prescribed percentages of their assets in specified Alabama investments. Thus, a foreign insurer doing the same type and volume of business as a domestic insurer generally paid three to four times as much in gross premiums taxes. The out-of-state insurers challenged the statute as violating the Equal Protection Clause and sought refunds for taxes paid from 1977 through 1980.

Issue

Whether Alabama's domestic preference tax statute, which taxed out-of-state insurers at higher rates than domestic insurers, violated the Equal Protection Clause. More specifically, because appellants waived the rational-relationship issue as to the two purposes accepted below, the question before the Court was whether those two purposes were legitimate state purposes.

Rule

A State may not impose more onerous taxes on foreign corporations than on domestic corporations unless the discrimination bears a rational relation to a legitimate state purpose. In this context, promotion of domestic business by discriminating against nonresident competitors, and encouraging in-state investment through a scheme that still leaves nonresidents taxed more heavily solely because of residence, are not legitimate state purposes under the Equal Protection Clause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada imposes a 5% gross-receipts tax on out-of-state title insurers doing business in Las Vegas and Reno, but only a 1% tax on title insurers incorporated and headquartered in Nevada. The legislature states that the purpose is to help Nevada insurers win more business from national rivals within Nevada.

If the out-of-state insurers challenge the tax under the Equal Protection Clause, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a State may not impose more onerous taxes on foreign corporations than on domestic corporations unless the discrimination bears a rational relation to a legitimate state purpose. Under the majority opinion, promoting domestic business within the State by discriminating against nonresident competitors is not a legitimate state purpose. The statute here gives local insurers a home-field advantage by taxing all foreign competitors more heavily solely because of their residence, so it violates equal protection.