Question

Oregon imposes an ad valorem property tax on cargo containers owned by a Japanese company. They are located only several weeks a year in the state and exclusively used for international commerce. A major Japanese port city places the same type tax on American-company owned containers located briefly (a few weeks of the year) in Japan. The Japanese company argues that the Oregon state tax imposed is not in compliance with US law and constitutional provisions. What is the strongest argument you as lawyer for the state can make tax is compliant?

a. Tax in question is "reciprocal" to pre-existing Japanese city tax applied to American company containers. Japan Line, Ltd. vs County of Los Angeles can be distinguished as no such taxation in Japan occurred.
b. Oregon tax is constitutional if the Oregon tax is a rate lower than Japanese tax.
c. There is no argument that exists in light of Commerce Clause.
d. Oregon tax is same amount or % as Japanese city tax.

Answer 1

The best defense for Oregon's ad valorem property tax on Japanese cargo containers is that the tax is reciprocal to Japan's tax on American containers, which suggests fairness and compliance with U.S. law. Option A is correct.

Step-by-step explanation:

The strongest argument that could be made in defense of the Oregon ad valorem property tax on Japanese company's cargo containers is that the tax is reciprocal to the pre-existing tax applied by a Japanese city to American company containers. This argument rests on the concept of reciprocity and is based on the fact that similar tax treatment is applied in both countries, thereby suggesting that Oregon's tax is not unfairly targeting foreign commerce or violating the constitutional provisions under the Commerce Clause.

The case of Japan Line, Ltd. vs. County of Los Angeles can be distinguished if in that instance there was no similar taxation occurring in Japan, making the situation different from the present scenario where reciprocal taxes exist.