Dulles Duty Free, LLC v. Cnty. of Loudoun, 803 S.E.2d 54

Dulles Duty Free operates duty‑free retail stores at Dulles Airport in Loudoun County and makes the vast majority of sales to international passengers who receive merchandise at the jetway (goods held in bonded warehouses and delivered to departing travelers).
International sales are zero‑rated for Virginia sales tax and are executed only after verification of passport/boarding pass; if buyer fails to collect, sale is voided and goods returned.
Loudoun County levies a BPOL tax measured on gross receipts (17¢ per $100 for businesses over $200,000), applied to all sales and calculated on prior year gross receipts.
Duty Free paid BPOL on all sales but sought correction/refunds for tax years 2009–2013 as applied to its international export sales, arguing the tax violates the Import‑Export Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, §10, cl.2).
The circuit court upheld the County; the Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding the BPOL tax, as applied to export goods in transit, is an unconstitutional impost on exports and remanded for computation of refunds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applying the BPOL gross‑receipts tax to sales of goods exported in transit violates the Import‑Export Clause	BPOL is effectively a tax on exported goods in transit and is barred under Richfield Oil	BPOL is a nondiscriminatory business privilege tax, not a direct tax on goods, so Michelin‑style analysis permits it	Court: BPOL duplicates the gross‑receipts impost invalidated in Richfield Oil and is unconstitutional as applied to export sales in transit
Which analytical test controls: Richfield Oil (bright‑line protection for goods in export transit) or Michelin (policy‑based test for nondiscriminatory taxes)	Richfield governs because Supreme Court precedent on export‑in‑transit taxation has not been overruled; operation/effect controls	County urged Michelin approach and distinguished Richfield	Court: Follow Richfield where a tax falls directly on export goods in transit; Michelin does not supplant Richfield on this point

Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 329 U.S. 69 (invalidating a gross‑receipts tax applied to oil already in export transit)
Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (abrogating the original‑package rule for imports and adopting a three‑part policy test for nondiscriminatory taxes)
Department of Revenue of Wash. v. Ass’n of Wash. Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (applying Michelin principles to exports and upholding a nondiscriminatory business tax on stevedoring services)
Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (upholding tax on services distinct from goods and distinguishing Richfield)
United States v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 517 U.S. 843 (noting the Court has not upheld a state tax assessed directly on goods in import/export transit)
Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. 29 (original‑package doctrine for imports later overruled by Michelin)
Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U.S. 292 (noting that a percentage on gross foreign‑commerce transactions operates as an impost or duty)
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (lower courts should follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent even if tension exists in other lines of cases)