Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.
United States Supreme Court case
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the application of state franchise taxes to out-of-state businesses.
Background
In 1980, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (WDR) decided that the in-state activities of the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company in selling and supplying retailers with chewing gum exceeded limits defined by Congress in 1961 that exempted foreign corporations from franchise and income taxes in a state as long as their activities were limited to soliciting customers. Wrigley, based in Chicago, neither owned nor leased any real property in the state. Its employees were limited to a regional sales manager, who worked out of his house, and district sales representatives who dealt directly with retailers. The company provided the representatives with cars and reimbursed some of their expenses. Nevertheless, WDR believed that since the sales reps also stored gum and personally resupplied retailers, including replacement of stale gum stocks at no cost, the company did more than just solicit customers in Wisconsin.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8027159. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1992, 1980 and 1961.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co. primary sources, Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co. archive and Wisconsin research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.