Work Force Plus, UCOM, Inc., or any other company, except for the stock in his pension plan. Defendant and Patty Pott also drive company vehicles supplied by UCOM and Work Force Plus, respectively. Following a denial by the trial court of a motion to stay its order, this Court granted defendant's application for leave to appeal in docket no. 207214 and granted Patty Pott's complaint for superintending control in docket no. 207128. This Court stayed the order regarding the motion to compel answers to interrogatories, including the production of Pott's W-2 forms and income tax returns, and consolidated docket no. 207214 with docket no. 207128. On appeal, defendant and Patty Pott raise the same issues.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal.
Defendant and Patty Pott argue that the trial court order compelling the production of income tax returns and W-2's of Patty Pott is in violation of federal law. Although defendant and Patty Pott claim that this statute prohibits a court from compelling a taxpayer from producing his or her income tax returns, we conclude otherwise. Further, this Court has previously concluded that, as a general rule, a party's income tax returns are subject to discovery. In addition, this Court concluded in Fassihi, supra , that a party to an action can be compelled to produce his or her joint tax return even if the other signatory to the return is not a party to the action. Michigan has a strong historical commitment to a far-reaching, open and effective discovery practice.