From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jul 3, 2013
832 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 146440. COA No. 306618.

2013-07-3

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant–Appellee.


Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 6913772.

Order

On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae and the motion for leave to file a reply brief are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the plaintiff could elect to use the apportionment formula provided in the Multistate Tax Compact, MCL 205.581, in calculating its 2008 tax liability to the State of Michigan, or whether it was required to use the apportionment formula provided in the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1101 et seq. ; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(1) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterallyaltered or amended by a member state; and (4) whether the modified gross receipts tax component of the Michigan Business Tax Act constitutes an income tax under the Multistate Tax Compact.


Summaries of

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jul 3, 2013
832 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 2013)
Case details for

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

Case Details

Full title:INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant, v…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Jul 3, 2013

Citations

832 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 2013)
832 N.W.2d 388

Citing Cases

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury

(1) whether the plaintiff could elect to use the apportionment formula provided in the Multistate Tax…

Gillette Commercial Operations N. American v. Dep't of Treasury

(1) whether the plaintiff could elect to use the apportionment formula provided in the Multistate Tax…