U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission
E479820
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of a multistate tax compact and clarified the limits of the Constitution’s Compact Clause on interstate agreements.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4892187 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission Context triple: [Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, appliedInCase, U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission]
-
A.
Moritz v. Commissioner
Moritz v. Commissioner is a landmark 1972 U.S. tax law case in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully challenged gender-based discrimination in the tax code, helping to establish a foundation for modern sex equality jurisprudence.
-
B.
Blair v. Commissioner
Blair v. Commissioner is a U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that addressed the assignment of income doctrine, holding that a taxpayer who assigns a beneficial interest in a trust also shifts the tax liability on the income from that interest.
-
C.
United States taxation and revenue case law
United States taxation and revenue case law comprises judicial decisions that interpret and apply federal and state tax statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions, shaping how taxes are assessed, collected, and disputed in the United States.
-
D.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
E.
Helvering v. Clifford
Helvering v. Clifford is a landmark 1940 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that clarified when income from a trust should be attributed to the grantor for federal income tax purposes.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission Target entity description: U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of a multistate tax compact and clarified the limits of the Constitution’s Compact Clause on interstate agreements.
-
A.
Moritz v. Commissioner
Moritz v. Commissioner is a landmark 1972 U.S. tax law case in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully challenged gender-based discrimination in the tax code, helping to establish a foundation for modern sex equality jurisprudence.
-
B.
Blair v. Commissioner
Blair v. Commissioner is a U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that addressed the assignment of income doctrine, holding that a taxpayer who assigns a beneficial interest in a trust also shifts the tax liability on the income from that interest.
-
C.
United States taxation and revenue case law
United States taxation and revenue case law comprises judicial decisions that interpret and apply federal and state tax statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions, shaping how taxes are assessed, collected, and disputed in the United States.
-
D.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
E.
Helvering v. Clifford
Helvering v. Clifford is a landmark 1940 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that clarified when income from a trust should be attributed to the grantor for federal income tax purposes.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (34)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ court case ⓘ tax law case ⓘ |
| appliedTo | Multistate Tax Compact NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
intergovernmental relations ⓘ state and local taxation ⓘ |
| clarified |
limits of the Constitution’s Compact Clause on interstate agreements
ⓘ
when congressional consent is necessary for interstate compacts ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1978 ⓘ |
| effect |
confirmed states’ ability to cooperate on tax administration without always needing congressional approval
ⓘ
upheld validity of a multistate tax compact ⓘ |
| holding |
Congressional consent is not required for every interstate agreement
ⓘ
Multistate Tax Commission did not impermissibly encroach on federal supremacy ⓘ Multistate Tax Compact did not unlawfully burden or discriminate against interstate commerce NERFINISHED ⓘ Multistate Tax Compact did not violate the Compact Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ Only interstate agreements that enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy require congressional consent ⓘ |
| impactOnLaw | influenced later cases on interstate compacts and federalism ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Compact Clause of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
federalism ⓘ interstate compacts ⓘ state taxation of multistate businesses ⓘ |
| petitioner | United States Steel Corporation NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Multistate Tax Commission
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Multistate Tax Compact NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | Multistate Tax Commission NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectOf |
analysis of state power to enter multistate tax compacts
ⓘ
interpretation of the Compact Clause ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission Description of subject: U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of a multistate tax compact and clarified the limits of the Constitution’s Compact Clause on interstate agreements.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Compact Clause of the United States Constitution
→
appliedInCase
→
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission
ⓘ