The U.S. Supreme Court case International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commissioner (1946) revolved around the issue of whether a state could impose a use tax on goods manufactured within its borders but sold for use in another state without violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The International Harvester Company had been assessed with such taxes by Ohio's Tax Commissioner and appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in lower courts. In this case, it was determined that Ohio's imposition of a use tax did not violate either due process or commerce clause protections as long as it is applied to an activity with substantial nexus with taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce and is fairly related to services provided by State. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Evatt stating that since these conditions were met by Ohio’s taxation scheme there was no constitutional violation present.

In the dissenting opinion for International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, Justice Frankfurter argued that Ohio's tax on sales of tangible personal property did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was applied to a corporation with substantial business operations in Ohio and thus had sufficient nexus with the state. He contended that there is no constitutional requirement for physical presence or delivery within a state for taxation purposes, as long as there is an adequate connection between the taxpayer and taxing authority. The justice also disagreed with majority’s interpretation of legal precedent, arguing instead that previous cases upheld taxes even when goods were delivered outside taxing states if other aspects of transactions occurred within those states.