Bauer v. Department of Treasury
| Decision Date | 20 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 141659 |
| Citation | 203 Mich.App. 97,512 N.W.2d 42 |
| Parties | Carl BAUER, Albert K. Brown, Roland Habrecht, Tom Hanna, Ernest C. Hilliard, and Jenette Weber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Rosi, Olson & Levine, P.C. by Philip R. Rosi and John W. Tilley, Traverse City, for plaintiffs.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Russell E. Prins and Steven D. Hughey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant.
Before BRENNAN, P.J., and WEAVER and BATZER, * JJ.
Plaintiffs are holders of royalty interests and lessors of mineral rights in oil and gas wells in the State of Michigan. In 1985, plaintiffs received royalty payments from the production of oil and gas. These royalties were reduced to reflect payment of the severance tax, pursuant to Brown v. Shell Oil Co., 128 Mich.App. 111, 339 N.W.2d 709 (1983).
Plaintiffs submitted applications to defendant, the Department of Treasury, for refunds of that portion of their 1985 personal income taxes attributable to payments received on their royalty interests. In doing so, they relied on § 15 of the severance tax act, M.C.L. § 205.315; M.S.A. § 7.365, which provides:
The severance tax herein provided for shall be in lieu of all other taxes, state or local, upon the oil or gas, the property rights attached thereto or inherent therein, or the values created thereby; upon all leases or the rights to develop and operate any lands of this state for oil or gas, the values created thereby and the property rights attached to or inherent therein: Provided, however, Nothing herein contained shall in anywise exempt the machinery, appliances, pipe lines, tanks and other equipment used in the development or operation of said leases, or used to transmit or transport the said oil or gas: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall in anywise relieve any corporation or association from the payment of any franchise or privilege taxes required by the provisions of the state corporation laws.
Defendant denied plaintiffs' applications for refunds, relying on Revenue Administration Bulletin 1989-22.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant suit, seeking a judgment declaring that Revenue Administration Bulletin 1989-22 was void and that plaintiffs were entitled to an exemption from state personal income taxes under § 15. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary disposition. Following a hearing, the court ordered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs now appeal, and we reverse.
The sole issue before us is whether an individual who pays severance tax on royalties received in an oil and gas lease is exempt from paying income taxes on those royalties.
Plaintiffs argue that § 15 exempts royalty income from other state taxes. Plaintiffs point to the fact that although the severance tax was enacted before there was an income tax, it has never been amended to include an exception for income tax. 1
Defendant argues that § 15 sets forth certain state and local taxes to which the exemption applies, and that there is nothing to indicate that the Legislature extended the exemption beyond those taxes in force in 1929. Defendant points to the fact that the Income Tax Act, M.C.L. § 206.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 7.557(101) et seq., did not provide for a credit for severance taxes that have been paid.
We agree with plaintiffs.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction or interpretation is unnecessary and therefore precluded. Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 439 Mich. 370, 483 N.W.2d 844 (1992).
Here, the relevant portion of § 15 reads:
The severance tax herein provided for shall be in lieu of all other taxes, state or local, upon ... the values created....
We find this to be a clear and unambiguous statement. When the statute says "in lieu of all other taxes," we can conclude only that it means what it says. The words of a statute are to be taken in the sense in which they will be understood by those who must abide by it. In re D'Amico Estate, 435 Mich. 551, 460 N.W.2d 198 (1990).
The difficulty arises in considering this in conjunction with M.C.L. § 206.51(1); M.S.A. § 7.557(151)(1), which provides:
For receiving, earning, or otherwise acquiring income from any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lapeer Cty. Abstract & Title Co. v. LAPEER CTY. REG. OF DEEDS
...over the general one, even if it were enacted before the more general statute, as the IORA was here. Bauer v. Dep't of Treasury, 203 Mich.App. 97, 100, 512 N.W.2d 42 (1993). The FOIA broadly covers requests for copies of records from governmental entities, while MCL 565.551(2) pertains spec......
-
State Treasurer v. Gardner, Docket No. 167791
...510 N.W.2d 900 (1994). This is true even where the specific statute was enacted before the general one. Bauer v. Dep't of Treasury, 203 Mich.App. 97, 100, 512 N.W.2d 42 (1993). In Schuster, this Court held that the plaintiff could not seek reimbursement from the defendant's retirement allow......
-
Elenbaas v. Department of Treasury
...appeals by leave granted. 1 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. After this Court's ruling in Bauer v. Dep't of Treasury, 203 Mich.App. 97, 512 N.W.2d 42 (1993), plaintiffs filed amended income tax returns for 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, seeking refunds for income taxes paid on t......
-
Cook v. Department of Treasury
...filed personal income tax returns and Michigan severance tax returns for several years before the issuance of Bauer v. Dep't of Treasury, 203 Mich.App. 97, 512 N.W.2d 42 (1993). Before Bauer, defendant treated oil and gas revenues as taxable under the Michigan Income Tax Act (ITA), M.C.L. §......