Court Opinion

ID: 9726774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:07:46.95268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:30.674418
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). This case involves a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant commission with reference to the amount of the annual corporate franchise fee for 1958 for which the plaintiff was liable. It is the claim of plaintiff that it filed its annual report with the defendant commission on May 13, 1958, and at that time paid a fee in the sum of $1,353,695.51. Subsequently it was notified that such amount was insufficient, and that the additional sum of $119,785.89 was owing. The latter amount was thereafter reduced by the sum of $656.64, and plaintiff paid under protest on December 30,1958.
• Following such payment plaintiff instituted the present action in the court of claims to recover the amount paid, alleging that said sum was unlawfully exacted from it, that it made the payment in order to secure a certificate of good standing from the defendant commission which it needed for use in con-*306neetion with certain contemplated financing operations, and that at the time of the payment under protest the commission was advised that suit for recovery would be brought.
On behalf of defendants motion was filed to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, it being further asserted that a like question of liability was pending in another proceeding before the corporation tax appeal board, and that the redetermination order of the commission wherein the reduction above referred to was made had been set aside. It appears that the attempt to rescind such order was made after the instant case was instituted.
The motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the court of claims was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. It was the opinion of the presiding judge that under PA 1921, No 85*, as amended by PA 1954, No 153 (CLS 1956, §§ 450-.309, 450.310 [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp §§ 21.210, 21.210(1)]), plaintiff was limited to the remedies allowed by the procedure therein set forth. The specific sections cited provide for notice to a corporation subject to the provisions of the act as to the amount of its franchise fee liability, with the right to ask for a redetermination thereof by the commission within a period of 20 days after receipt of such notice. Review by an appeal board composed of the attorney general, the State treasurer, and the auditor general, may be claimed by either the commission or the corporation, with subsequent review by this Court. The amendments made further permitted a demand for a refund on the part of a corporation for an excessive payment made by it for franchise fee liability with the right of review by the appeal board and subsequently by this Court. Such methods of procedure were indicated to be *307independent, it apparently being tbe intention of the legislature that either or both might be followed.
It is significant that the legislature did not specify that the remedies to a corporation, thereby afforded, would be exclusive. In view of the decision of this Court in In re Consolidated Freight Co., 265 Mich 340, 348 (4 PUR NS 397), it may be assumed that the legislature intended that the review in this Court should be confined wholly to questions of law, in other words, an appeal in the nature of certiorari. If, therefore, the statutory procedure under the 1954 act, above cited, is exclusive, a corporation considering itself aggrieved by being required to pay the amount of the franchise fee as fixed by the commission has no remedy by which factual issues can be tried in court. Such result is not consistent with the provision of the general property tax law (CL 1948, § 211.53 [Stat Ann 1950 Bev § 7.97]) allowing the payment of taxes under protest, with the right to sue to recover such payments.
Had it been the intention of the legislature in the enactment of PA 1954, No 153, to deprive corporations of the right recognized in Consumers Power Company v. Corporation & Securities Commission, 326 Mich 643 (16 ALR2d 1084), to bring action in the court of claims to recover a franchise fee paid under protest, we think such intent would have been clearly expressed. The administrative procedures as provided in said amendatory act are not inconsistent with the right to sue in the court of claims, the review of such procedure-being limited to questions of law only. The implied abrogation of a right analogous to that granted by the general property tax law to taxpayers may not be assumed. An intent to abolish a cause of action previously allowed to a given class must be clearly expressed. Such is the legislative policy in this State as evidenced by the workmen’s compensation act and other statutes abolishing cer*308tain actions. We concur in reversal of the case and its remand to the court of claims for trial.
The sole question before us at the present time being jurisdictional in nature, any consideration of the controversy on its merits is not required. Issues of such character must necessarily be determined first in the trial court. It may be noted, however, that it is.plaintiff!s claim here that it paid the tax that it now seeks to recover under protest, and that it was, as a matter of fact, compelled to do so for the reason above indicated. The case presents questions not involved in Consumers Power Company v. County of Muskegon, 346 Mich 243, and Spoon-Shacket Company, Inc., v. County of Oakland, 356 Mich 151, in each of which the tax for which suit was brought to recover was not paid under protest and under alleged duress or coercion of any kind, but solely for other reasons.
Reversed and remanded for trial.
Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Cars, J.

 CL 1948, § 450.301 et seq., as amended (Stat Ann § 21.201 et seq., as amended).