Court Opinion

ID: 9849181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:35:47.847394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:05.382517
License: Public Domain

Williams, C.J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with my brother Brickley’s suggestion that it is immaterial whether the exaction in this case is a fee or a tax. Although it is sometimes difficult to affix a label, I believe it makes a great deal of difference. A tax is a revenue-raising exercise of the government’s taxing power, while a fee is an exercise of the police power. The government may not seek to raise revenue through an enactment under the police power, Merrelli v St Clair Shores, 355 Mich 575, 583; 96 NW2d 144 (1959), and a statutorily enacted fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the expense for which it is chargeable. Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157, 168-169; 146 NW 338 (1914); City of Dearborn v State Tax Comm, 368 Mich 460, 472; 118 NW2d 296 (1962).
Our Court of Appeals has held that fees charged under the Probate Code for administration of estates, graduated in relation to the size of the estate, are justified by a direct relationship between the size of the estate and the level of services required for its administration by the Probate Court. Foreman v Oakland Co Treasurer, 57 Mich App 231; 226 NW2d 67 (1974), lv den 394 Mich 815 (1975). In my opinion, defendants here have shown no such relationship between the size of the tax bill being collected and the cost of collection.
*426I would therefore affirm..
Riley, J., took no part in the decision of this case.