________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132343-5 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132347-9 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan BETTEN AUTO CENTER, INC., Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132343 

 COA: 265976 

Ct of Claims: 04-000095-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

BETTEN MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a TOYOTA 

OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132344 

 COA: 265977 

Ct of Claims: 04-000096-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

BETTEN-FRIENDLY MOTORS COMPANY, 

d/b/a/ FAMILY AUTO CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132345 

 COA: 265978 

Ct of Claims: 04-000097-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

BETTEN AUTO CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132347 

 COA: 265976 

Ct of Claims: 04-000095-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

2 

BETTEN MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a TOYOTA 

OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132348 

 COA: 265977 

Ct of Claims: 04-000096-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

BETTEN-FRIENDLY MOTORS COMPANY, 

d/b/a/ FAMILY AUTO CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132349 

 COA: 265978 

Ct of Claims: 04-000097-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On May 10, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the applications for leave to 

appeal the August 1, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the 

applications are again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we AFFIRM only that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the vehicles 

in question are exempt from the imposition of a use tax under the resale exemption 

contained in MCL 205.94(1)(c). The MCL 205.94(1)(c) “purchased for resale” 

exemption precludes use tax under MCL 205.93(1). We VACATE the balance of the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and adopt the trial court’s August 2, 2005 opinion and 

order holding that MCL 205.94(1)(c) applies and that no use tax is due. The “exemption 

for demonstration purposes” exemption of MCL 205.94(1)(c) and the “purchased for 

resale” exemption of MCL 205.94(1)(c) are independent of one another; both provide 

exemptions from use tax upon satisfaction of applicable statutory criteria. The Court of 

Appeals also erred in applying the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “consumer,” 

rather than the statutory definition of “consumer” set forth in MCL 205.92(g). “We need 

not, indeed we must not, search afield for meanings where the act supplies its own.” 

W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc v Department of Revenue, 353 Mich 345, 350 (1958). 

CAVANAGH, J., concurs in the result. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 25, 2007 

Clerk