Daily Tax Report: State provides authoritative coverage of state and local tax developments across the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, tracking legislative and regulatory updates,...
The Michigan Department of Treasury contends the state isn’t bound by the Multistate Tax Compact and called on the U.S. Supreme Court to not accept petitions to review the state’s retroactive repeal of the compact three years ago ( Sonoco v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , U.S., 16-687, brief in opposition to petitions for review filed 3/13/17 ).
The treasury department in a March 13 response brief portrayed the MTC as an “advisory compact, not binding on the state, especially with respect to taxpayers who aren’t parties to the compact” or third-party beneficiaries. The state agency added that the high court had recently denied similar petitions for review involving other states.
Moreover, the department said the dispute with several dozen out-of-state corporate taxpayers was resolved through a legislative correction, controlling on Michigan courts and definitively establishing that the MTC’s three-factor apportionment formula is deemed to have been repealed in 2008. As a result, the treasury department said the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review any questions premised on retroactive application of the apportionment method.
The Michigan Legislature in 2014 amended the Michigan Business Tax Act and repealed the MTC. Under the amendment, businesses were forced to apportion their tax base using a “sales-factor apportionment formula,” retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008. Several taxpayers, including DirecTV, Goodyear, IBM and Sonoco, have asked the Supreme Court to review the state’s retroactive repeal.
The petitioners ask the high court to review the Michigan Supreme Court’s decisions to reject review of multiple consolidated cases seeking refunds and to deny a declaration of the companies’ right to use the compact’s three-factor apportionment formula instead of the BTA’s apportionment regime. At stake is more than $1 billion in potential refunds.
The dispute dates back to the Michigan Supreme Court’s July 2014 holding that IBM could calculate its 2008 tax liability with the compact apportionment election, finding that state legislation repealing the compact beginning January 2011 wasn’t controlling. Months later, the Michigan Legislature withdrew from the compact, retroactive to January 2008.
The Supreme Court had ordered the state’s response. Now, it may choose to set a hearing to decide whether it will rule on the Michigan petitions, as well as petitions against a similar Washington state law ( Dot Foods, Inc. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, U.S., No. 16-308, reply in support of petition for review filed 12/21/16 ).
The court could combine the Michigan and Washington cases in one hearing.
The Washington case involves Dot Foods Inc.'s challenge of a Washington Supreme Court ruling that the retroactive application of a statutory amendment narrowing a business and occupation tax exemption didn’t violate due process. In a Dec. 21 reply, the company reiterated that the case is prime for review—arguing that the state court’s decision “deepens a conflict” among lower courts and implicates “millions, if not billions, of dollars.”
Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation has joined a large chorus calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to review Michigan’s retroactive repeal of the Multistate Tax Compact.
The Washington-based tax research organization filed a friend of the court brief Feb. 9. Several briefs filed in December by various tax and business groups—American College of Tax Counsel, Council on State Taxation, National Association of Manufacturers, and Tax Executives Institute, Inc.—echoed the plea for the high court to review the companies’ petitions.
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael J. Bologna in Chicago at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ryan C. Tuck at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the Michigan Treasury's response brief is at http://src.bna.com/mV9
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)