2007 House Bill 5096 (Revise “deferred assets” taxation under new state business tax)

Public Act 104 of 2007

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Steve Bieda (D) on August 8, 2007, to retroactively change some definitions in the Use Tax Act (related to who is a "taxpayer" for purposes of claiming a bad debt deduction) that will have the effect of reversing the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case "DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Department of Treasury," under which the state will be required to honor $93 million in tax refund claims. The bill would also result in an additional $30 million in annual use tax paid by business in the future.
- Referred to the House Tax Policy Committee on August 8, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Steve Bieda (D) on September 24, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on September 24, 2007.
Passed in the House (56 to 52) on September 24, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 25, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate on September 25, 2007.
Passed in the Senate (22 to 16) on September 30, 2007, to retroactively change some definitions in the Use Tax Act (related to who is a "taxpayer" for purposes of claiming a bad debt deduction) that will have the effect of reversing the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case "DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Department of Treasury," under which the state will be required to honor $93 million in tax refund claims. The bill would also result in an additional $30 million in annual use tax paid by business in the future. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 1, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

1) Sore Losers [by Anonymous Citizen on September 25, 2007]
So you write a tax law that the Taxpayer follows to a T and when the Supreme Court says pay up, you want to change the rules retro-actively.

Not bad, you just make up the rules as you go along and screw a company who just spent a fortune fighting you all the way to the Supreme Court over a law that YOU wrote.

Yea! I want to do business in Michigan, sure I do.

Reply

Line

2) More to come [by Anonymous Citizen on August 15, 2007]
Plan on lots of unintended consequences from the new, even more complicated business tax.
Reply

Line

3) 2007 House Bill 5096 (Revise “deferred assets” taxation under new state business tax) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on August 8, 2007, to retroactively change some definitions in the Use Tax Act (related to who is a "taxpayer" for purposes of claiming a bad debt deduction) that will have the effect of reversing the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case "DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Department of Treasury," under which the state will be required to honor $93 million in tax refund claims. The bill would also result in an additional $30 million in annual use tax paid by business in the future

The vote was 56 in favor, 52 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 391 at House Journal 95)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation