Davis v. Department of Treasury

• Decision Date: 08 July 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 88776
• Citation: 408 N.W.2d 433,160 Mich.App. 98
• Parties: Paul S. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. 160 Mich.App. 98, 408 N.W.2d 433
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 433

408 N.W.2d 433

Paul S. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 88776.

160 Mich.App. 98, 408 N.W.2d 433

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 12, 1987.

Decided May 5, 1987.

Released for Publication July 8, 1987.

[160 MICHAPP 99] Paul S. Davis, pro se.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Richard R. Roesch and Robert C. Ward, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and WAHLS and CROCKETT, ^* JJ.

CROCKETT, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the order of the Court of Claims granting summary disposition to the Michigan Department of Treasury pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2). [160 MICHAPP 100] The court upheld the department's decision to deny plaintiff an income tax refund in the amount of $4,299.53, for the tax years 1979 through 1984, finding that the taxation of plaintiff's federal retirement benefits was lawful.

The facts necessary for the resolution of this appeal are undisputed. Plaintiff is a resident of Michigan and retired federal government employee who receives federal civil service retirement benefits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8331 et seq. The issue on appeal is whether the Michigan Department of Treasury has the authority to impose an income tax on plaintiff's federal retirement benefits. Under the Michigan Income Tax Act, M.C.L. Sec. 206.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 7.557(101) et seq., plaintiff was permitted to deduct from his taxable Michigan income no more than $7,500 of the amount he received in federal retirement benefits. M.C.L. Sec. 206.30; M.S.A. Sec. 7.557(130). By comparison, the same statutory provision permits state retirees receiving benefits from a public retirement system of the state or its political subdivisions to deduct retirement benefits in full. It is this differing tax treatment of retirement benefits which forms the basis of plaintiff's refund claims.

In 1984, plaintiff filed amended income tax returns for the tax years 1979 through 1982, claiming that he was entitled to a refund because his federal retirement benefits were allegedly not subject to income taxation by the State of Michigan. Plaintiff's refund requests were denied and he filed a complaint in the Court of Claims. Refund requests for tax years 1983 and 1984 were later added to the complaint by consent. Plaintiff asserted that the state tax was discriminatory as to source and therefore unlawful under federal law. The Court of Claims rejected plaintiff's arguments [160 MICHAPP 101] and granted summary disposition to the department.

The department's authority to impose a tax on retirement benefits under Michigan law is provided for in M.C.L. Sec. 206.30; M.S.A. Sec. 7.557(130). As amended in 1984, the statute provides in relevant part:

"(h) Deduct to the extent included in adjusted gross income:

"(i) Retirement or pension benefits received from a public retirement system of or created by an act of this state or a political subdivision of this state.

"(ii) Any retirement or pension benefits received from a public retirement system of or created by another state or any of its political subdivisions if the income tax laws of the other state permit a similar deduction or exemption or a reciprocal deduction or exemption of a retirement or pension benefit received from a public retirement system of or created by this state or any of the political subdivisions of this state.

"(iii) Social security benefits as defined in section 86 of the internal revenue code.

"(iv) Retirement or pension benefits from any other retirement or pension system as follows:

"(A) For a single return, the sum of not more than $7,500.00.

"(B) For a joint return, the sum of not more than $10,000.00."

The State Employees' Retirement Act, M.C.L. Sec. 38.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.981(a) et seq., which predates the MITA, also exempts from taxation the right of a person to a pension or retirement allowance accruing pursuant to the act. Further, the Michigan Constitution provides that the accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of this state and its political subdivisions are declared to be contractual obligations thereof [160 MICHAPP 102] which cannot be diminished or impaired. Const.1963, art. 9, Sec. 24. Michigan law does not extend similar status to federal pensions.

Initially, plaintiff argues on appeal that the Federal Public Salary Act of 1939 as amended, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 111, prohibits the discriminatory tax treatment of federal pensions which allegedly is present in the MITA. That federal statute provides:

"The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." (Emphasis added.)

The Court of Claims in this case determined that plaintiff was not an employee within the meaning of the above statute and therefore was not entitled to its protection. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the statute embraces both present and former employees. We agree with the Court of Claims.

By enacting 4 U.S.C. Sec. 111, Congress intended that federal employees should contribute to the support of their state and local governments, which confer upon them the same privileges and benefits which are accorded to persons engaged in private occupations. United States v. City of Pittsburgh, 757 F.2d 43 (CA 3, 1985). However, Sec. 111 limits its coverage to federal officers or employees. The term employee has been defined as embracing only those who work for another for hire. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 92 S.Ct. 383, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 [160 MICHAPP 103] (1971). Further, it has been held that a retired federal civil service employee is not to be considered an employee for civil service purposes. See Lancellotti v. Office of Personnel Management, 704 F.2d 91 (CA 3, 1983).

In this case, plaintiff's status as a retired federal employee is clearly not one who works for hire. Under the federal civil service retirement act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8331 et seq., which governs plaintiff's retirement benefits, plaintiff is an annuitant. An annuitant is defined in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8331(9) as a former employee who meets all the requirements to receive an annuity. Further, unlike the treatment of pension rights under the Michigan retirement system, a federal worker's pension rights are not treated as contractual obligations. Rather, their entitlement to retirement benefits must be determined from the statute and regulations which govern them, in this case 5 U.S.C. 8331 et seq.; Zucker v. United States, 758 F.2d 637 (CA Fed, 1985), cert. den. --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 129, 88 L.Ed.2d 105 (1985).

However, plaintiff contends that he should be treated as an employee for purposes of 4 U.S.C. Sec. 111, despite his retirement status, because his retirement benefits constitute a form of deferred compensation. While the legislative history of the federal civil service retirement act lends some support to plaintiff's argument, we are still unpersuaded. The federal civil service retirement plan was enacted with the purpose of establishing a deferred compensation plan to allow the federal government to compete with the private sector by offering an attractive retirement plan to federal employees. Clark v. United States, 691 F.2d 837, 842 (CA 7, 1982). Both the employee and the government contribute to the retirement fund. The eventual annuity that the retired employee receives[160...