City of Detroit v. Detroit Commercial Coll.
Decision Date | 08 September 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 38.,38. |
Citation | 33 N.W.2d 737,322 Mich. 142 |
Parties | CITY OF DETROIT et al. v. DETROIT COMMERCIAL COLLEGE. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, judge.
Action by the City of Detroit and the treasurer thereof against the Detroit Commercial College, a corporation, for personal property taxes. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Clark, Klein, Brucker & Waples, Wilber M. Brucker and Arthur P. Boynton, all of Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Raymond J. Kelly, Corp. Counsel, and John H. Witherspoon and Helen W. Miller, Assts. Corp. Counsel, all of Detroit, for appellees.
The question involved in this case is whether defendant, Detroit Commercial College, is exempt from personal property tax by virtue of the provisions of 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 3397, Stat.Ann. § 7.9 which provides:
‘The following personal property shall be exempt from taxation, to wit:
‘First, the personal property of benevolent, charitable, educational and scientific institutions incorporated under the laws of this state: * * *.’
The city of Detroit brought action for personal property taxes for the years 1942 through 1946 inclusive claimed to be due and owing from the Detroit Commercial College, a non profit educational corporation organized under Act No. 327, Pub.Acts 1931, as amended, Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 10135-1 et seq., Stat.Ann. § 21.1 et seq. The amount of taxes and interest involved is the sum of $794.78.
Defendant college was incorporated in 1941. Its articles of incorporation state its purposes to be:
Its articles of incorporation were submitted to the State board of education to have determined whether the college had met certain requirements of the statute providing for incorporation of an educational institution. The secretary of the State board of education certified as follows:
‘The Detroit Commercial College:
‘(1) possesses adequate housing space and administration facilities for its declared field, or fields of education;
‘(2) has an adequate educational program organized to give instruction leading to the diplomas which it proposes to offer;
‘(3) has adequate laboratory, library and other teaching facilities for the carrying on of the program proposed;
‘(4) has adequate staff, fully trained, for the teaching proposed;
‘(5) has at least 50% of its capital paid in or reduced to possession, as appears from the statements contained in Article IV, subparagraph (b) of the proposed Articles of Incorporation.’
It also appears that the college gives a two-year course in specialized educational training preparatory to the taking of a position in the business world. The school is designed to prepare students to enter the business world with specialized training in the field of business. It is not a preparatory school to furnish certificates for advanced credit in any junior or preparatory college or other educational institution. Upon completing a course, students are furnished with a certificate of accomplishments for use in the business world. The college offers courses for persons entering the business world and for teachers in shorthand, professional reporting and court practice, English and correspondence, typewriting, bookkeeping and accounting practice, business mathematics, constitutional and business law, geography, insurance, banking, advertising, real estate, stocks and bonds, Detroit business and business decorum.
When the cause came on for trial, both parties asked for a summary judgment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the city of Detroit in the sum of $794.78.
It is appellant's position that its personal property is expressly exempt from taxation by virtue of 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 3397, Stat.Ann. § 7.9; that the phrase ‘educational * * * institutions incorporated under the laws of this state’ in the personal property tax exemption statute refers to the educational corporations provided for in the following: Act No. 327, Pub. Acts 1931, Comp.Laws Supp. 1940, § 10135-170, Stat.Ann. § 21.171.
Prior to 1939 the certification by the State board of education was not required as a condition precedent to incorporation. Act No. 162, Pub.Acts 1939, amended certain sections of the corporation code pertaining to the incorporation of educational institutions including section 171, Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 10135-171, to provide that every educational corporation, before being authorized to file its articles of incorporation, shall be required to present a statement to the Michigan corporation and securities commission from the State board of education as to certain matters. Among these are that the proposed corporation possesses adequate housing space and administration facilities; and that it has an adequate educational program to give diplimas or degrees which it proposes to offer.
In our opinion the certification by the State board of education, while required by the act in question before articles of incorpoation can be filed, does not contol taxing officials and courts. The act if given the construction claimed for it by appellants would in effect delegate to the State board of education and to the corporation and securities commission the power to determine what corporations are entitled to enjoy exemption from taxation. Such authority cannot be delegated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trugreen Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury
...is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be extended beyond what was meant." [ Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College , 322 Mich. 142, 149, 33 N.W.2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed.), § 672, p. 1403.]Thus, TruGreen bears a heavy burden. It must demonstrate ......
-
Gen. Motors Corp.. v. Dep't of Treasury.
...statute the favor would be extended beyond what was meant.’ ” [ Id. at 375, 781 N.W.2d 310, quoting Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich. 142, 148–149, 33 N.W.2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p. 1403.]III. DUE PROCESS “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Uni......
-
D'Amico Estate, In re
...will not be inferred from language of a statute if the words admit of any other reasonable construction. Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich. 142, 148, 33 N.W.2d 737 (1948). III As we see it, the case before us turns on whether the inheritance tax imposed amounts to a tax on the......
-
Andrie Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury
...v. Nims, 361 Mich. 128, 137, 105 N.W.2d 186 (1960), but the rule is older than that. See, e.g., City of Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich. 142, 149, 33 N.W.2d 737 (1948) ( “[T]he burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption....”); Engineering Soc. of Det......