Opinion ID: 2052640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: long administrative interpretation and legislative acquiescence

Text: In Ready-Power, this Court set forth The instruction of the State tax commission to assessing officers, under date of January 2, 1952, in Bulletin No 83 [which] states in part: `1. A taxpayer having an inventory in more than one assessment district in the State of Michigan must file on the same basis in all assessment districts. The election of the basis for the computation of its inventory remains entirely within the discretion of the taxpayer.' 336 Mich 524. In stating its decision this Court in Ready-Power referred to its reliance on the State Tax Commission interpreting § 13 to require uniformity as follows: If the city's argument is to be approved, we must, in the same breath, approve a violation of the constitutional guaranty of uniformity, in that we must admit that it is proper for Detroit to tax plaintiff on a fiscal year basis and permit the city of Dearborn to tax upon a different basis. The State tax commission itself, as hereinbefore quoted, has recognized the necessity of uniform treatment of taxpayers in its instructions to assessing officers. Our position in Ready-Power with respect to § 13 confirms the rule this Court spoke to in 1968 as follows: The construction given to a statute by those charged with the duty of executing it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons. Magreta v Ambassador Steel Co, 380 Mich 513, 519; 158 NW2d 473 (1968). Sutherland explains the effect of administrative interpretation as [o]ne of the most significant aids of construction in determining the meaning of revenue laws    . 3 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 66.04, p 192. See, Borden, Inc v Dep't of Treasury, 391 Mich 495, 515; 218 NW2d 667 (1974); Hazel Park v Municipal Finance Commission, 317 Mich 582, 605; 27 NW2d 106 (1947). Section 13 was interpreted by the State Tax Commission as early as 1952, and this interpretation was reaffirmed as recently as 1971 in instruction number 6 on the reverse side of the State Tax Commission 1971 Personal Property Reporting form, which provides: The election of the method of reporting the inventory is made annually and the taxpayer must use the same method of average monthly inventory or the December 31, inventory, in all assessment districts in which he has taxable inventories in Michigan. [7] In Ready-Power, as indicated, we cited with approval the commission's interpretation that the taxpayer's election must be uniform throughout the state. This Court did not question the correctness of the administrative interpretation at that time, and there has been neither disaffirmance through case law or change in the commission's interpretation. Therefore, totally ignoring that interpretation at this time is not warranted. Appellee argues, however, that we should ignore this administrative interpretation because it was neither formally promulgated into a rule or regulation under 1943 PA 88, which was in force when Ready-Power first acknowledged the interpretation, nor under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, MCLA 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq., our present statute for formal promulgation of rules and regulations. With this we cannot agree. To say that this administrative interpretation is not to be accorded the deference granted a codified rule or regulation, is not to say that this Court cannot recognize the same as a valid administrative interpretation and weigh it accordingly. Indeed, the Court of Appeals accorded much weight to such an uncodified administrative interpretation in Grayson v Board of Accountancy, 27 Mich App 26, 34; 183 NW2d 424 (1970). See, generally, 22 Callaghan's Michigan Civil Jurisprudence, Statutes, § 141. Further, as stated supra, the Legislature is presumed to have accepted this particular administrative interpretation when it amended § 13, subsequent to Ready-Power, without change as to the language with which we now deal.