Court Opinion

ID: 9670219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:55.354508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.120231
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
Plaintiffs, Delaware corporations doing business in Michigan and other states, filed suit to compel the refund of intangible taxes which were paid under protest. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted and defendant appeals as of right.
It is uncontested that plaintiffs own certain *628income producing intangible property, i.e. receivables, located outside the State of Michigan. At issue is whether these intangibles have a "situs” in Michigan subjecting them to the intangibles tax act, MCL 205.131 et seq.; MSA 7.556(1) et seq. Defendant alleges that the use in Michigan of the income from those receivables establishes a sufficient nexus between this state and the property to warrant imposition of the tax. We do not agree.
In pertinent part, MCL 205.131(c); MSA 7.556(l)(c) states:
"Provided, [t]hat in the case of intangible personal property used in connection with the conduct of the owner’s business both within and outside the state of Michigan, all such property shall be deemed to have a 'situs’ in this state to the extent of the percentage of the whole of such property as determined by the allocation formula set forth in section 12 of this act.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In construing this provision, The E F MacDonald Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 62 Mich App 626, 637; 233 NW2d 678 (1975), held that
"Where the only connection between the state and the intangibles is that the interest produced by the intangibles is available as part of the general cash account for use by the Michigan branch of the nonresident business, a situs for taxable jurisdiction is not established.”
In MacDonald the note receivable from a company which did not operate in Michigan, to the taxpayer, was made in Ohio and arose from business activities in California. The only connection between the note and the State of Michigan was that the income from the receivable was available for use, as part of MacDonald’s general cash ac*629count, by the Michigan branch of the business, as well as branches in other states. No other use of the receivable in connection with the conduct of MacDonald’s Michigan business was demonstrated. Similarly, in this case the treasury’s assessment is based on a number of receivables which bear no relation to Michigan other than the fact that the income from interest paid on those notes is sent to Michigan for the use of the taxpayers’ Michigan operations.
In making its determination the MacDonald Court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals decision which it described as follows:
"The Board * * * applied the facts of the case to the proviso clause of the statute and decided that the record did not support the conclusion that the intangible assets were 'used in the conduct’ of MacDonald’s business in Michigan. The use in Michigan of income of the intangible, as compared with use of the intangible itself, was held to be insufficient to constitute situs under the statute(Emphasis supplied.) 62 Mich App at 633-634.
See also, National Gypsum Co v Dep’t of Treausry, State Board of Tax Appeals, docket #953 (1977).
Defendant maintains that MacDonald is not controlling since the income from that case was merely "available” and not actually used in Michigan as it purports to show here. This contention is without merit. Our reading of MacDonald persuades us that it did not intend to make such a distinction. The use of income in Michigan from intangible property located in another state does not generate a Michigan tax situs in that property. The trial court’s order of summary judgment is therefore affirmed.
R. M. Maher, J., concurred.