Court Opinion

ID: 9726331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:44:44.362222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:26.094393
License: Public Domain

Quinn, J.,
(dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. Topps of Warren and the other nine corporate subsidiaries of Interstate Department Stores in Michigan are not only wholly owned by Interstatethe records of the subsidiaries are kept by Interstate in New York and the inventories of the subsidiaries are furnished to them by Interstate from New York.
Const 1963, art 9, § 3, requires uniformity of taxation. This constitutional mandate cannot be met if a taxpayer is permitted to pay taxes on property that is undervalued. Implementation of the constitutional uniformity requirement is one of the obligations of the State Tax Commission. MCLA § 211.150 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 7.208) provides in part:
“It shall be the duty of the commission:
“(1) To have and exercise general supervision over the supervisors and other assessing officers of this state, and to take such measures as will secure the enforcement of the provisions of this act, to the end that all of the properties of this state liable to *65assessment for taxation shall he placed upon the assessment rolls and assessed at that proportion of true cash value which the legislature from time to time shall provide pursuant to the provisions of article 9, § 3, of the constitution.
* # *
“(3) To receive all complaints as to property liable to taxation that has not been assessed or that has been fraudulently or improperly assessed, and to investigate the same, and to take such proceedings as will correct the irregularity complained of, if any is found to exist.”
The majority opinion concedes that the proceeding to revise the assessment of Topps-Stillman, Inc., was proper, and I agree. It is my view that the petition for investigation filed in the Topps-Stillman, Inc., matter gave the tax commission jurisdiction to investigate all subsidiaries of Interstate Department Stores in Michigan and authority to correct any irregularity found to exist.
In a tax avoidance case, Charles E. Austin, Inc., v. Secretary of State (1948), 321 Mich 426, 434, the Supreme Court applied the rule announced in In re Culhane’s Estate (1934), 269 Mich 68:
“The separate existence of the two corporations will he ignored and both will he regarded as one where they are so organized and carried on that one is a mere instrumentality or agent or adjunct of another.”
This reasoning is firmly supported by People v. Clauson (1964), 231 Cal App 2d 374 (41 Cal Rptr 691), and this reasoning leads to the conclusion that Interstate Department Stores is the person submitting the erroneous statement in the present case, MCLA § 211.22 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 7.22), and not the individual Michigan subsidiaries.
*66This reasoning and the provisions of MCLA § 211.150, quoted supra, lead me to believe that the majority opinion’s strict construction reasoning is improperly applied in this case because it unduly restricts the tax commission in fulfilling its statutory and constitutional obligations.
I vote to affirm.