Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The plaintiff (a tobacco company) challenged the constitutionality of Article 9(5)(4) of Provincial Law No. 440, incorporated via Article 4 of Provincial Law No. 566, which imposed local taxes for services needed to verify the legitimacy and origin of cigars and cigarette products coming into the province of Tierra del Fuego, for the consumption of its population. The plaintiff argued that the tax was merely an additional local tax imposed on the consumption of cigarettes to fund a public infrastructure project and that it functioned like a local tariff, which is prohibited by Article 11 of the Magna Carta of Argentina. Taxes on cigarettes and other harmful substances can only be imposed if the resources are used to directly cover costs for these, but not to fund public infrastructure or carry out any other functions. The plaintiff claimed that the Nation, and not the province, had competence to regulate its products. The Argentinean Supreme Court ruled that the local tax was unconstitutional because it is the Nation that has exclusive competence and that a company could not be taxed twice for the same use.