Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 87-1020

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtKENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. STEVENS
Citation103 L.Ed.2d 891,109 S.Ct. 1500,489 U.S. 803
Decision Date28 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-1020
PartiesPaul S. DAVIS, Appellant v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

489 U.S. 803
109 S.Ct. 1500
103 L.Ed.2d 891
Paul S. DAVIS, Appellant

v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.

No. 87-1020.
Argued Jan. 9, 1989.
Decided March 28, 1989.
Syllabus

In each of the years 1979 through 1984, appellant, a Michigan resident and former federal employee, paid state income tax on his federal retirement benefits in accordance with the Michigan Income Tax Act, which exempts from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the State or its political § bdivisions, but taxes retirement benefits paid by other employers, including the Federal Government. After the State denied appellant's request for refunds, he filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims, alleging that the State's inconsistent treatment of retirement benefits violated 4 U.S.C. § 111, which authorizes States to tax "pay or compensation for personal services as [a federal] officer or employee . . ., if the taxation does not discriminate against the . . . employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." The Court of Claims denied relief, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that appellant is an "annuitant" under federal law rather than an "employee" within the meaning of § 111, and that that section therefore has no application to him. The Court of Appeals also held that the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity did not render the State's discriminatory tax scheme unconstitutional, since the discrimination was justified under a rational-basis test: The State's interest in attracting and retaining qualified employees was a legitimate objective which was rationally achieved by a retirement plan offering economic inducements.

Held:

1. Section 111 applies to federal retirees such as appellant. The State's contention that the section is limited to current federal employees is refuted by the plain language of the statute's first clause. Since the amount of civil service retirement benefits is based and computed upon an individual's salary and years of service, it represents deferred compensation for service to the Government, and therefore constitutes "pay or compensation . . . as [a federal] employee" within the meaning of that clause. The State's contention that, since this quoted language does not occur in the statute's second, nondiscrimination clause, that clause applies only to current employees, is hypertechnical and fails to read the nondiscrimination clause in its context within the overall statutory scheme. The reference to "the pay or compensation" in the latter clause must, in context, mean the same "pay or compensation" defined in

Page 804

the section's first clause and thus includes retirement benefits. The State's reading of the clause is implausible because it is unlikely that Congress consented to discriminatory taxation of retired federal civil servants' pensions while refusing to permit such taxation of current employees, and there is nothing in the statutory language or legislative history to suggest such a result. Pp. 808-810.

2. Section 111's language, purpose, and legislative history establish that the scope of its nondiscrimination clause's grant or retention of limited tax immunity for federal employees is coextensive with, and must be determined by reference to, the prohibition against discriminatory taxes embodied in the modern constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. Pp. 810-814.

3. Michigan's tax scheme violates principles of intergovernmental tax immunity by favoring retired state and local government employees over retired federal employees. Pp. 814-817.

(a) The State's contention that appellant is not entitled to claim the protection of the immunity doctrine is without merit. Although the doctrine is based on the need to protect each sovereign's governmental operations from undue interference by another sovereign, this Court's precedents establish that private entities or individuals who are subjected to discriminatory taxation on account of their dealings with a sovereign can themselves receive the protection of the constitutional doctrine. See, for example, Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School Dist., 361 U.S. 376, 387, 80 S.Ct. 474, 481, 4 L.Ed.2d 384. Pp. 814-815.

(b) In determining whether the State's inconsistent tax treatment of federal and state retirees is permissible, the relevant inquiry is whether the inconsistency is directly related to and justified by "significant differences between the two classes." Phillips, supra, at 384-385, 80 S.Ct., at 479-480. The State's claimed interest in hiring qualified civil servants through the inducement of a tax exemption for retirement benefits is irrelevant to this inquiry, since it merely demonstrates that the State has a rational reason for discriminating between two similar groups of retirees without demonstrating any differences between those groups themselves. Moreover, the State's claim that its retirement benefits are significantly less munificent than federal benefits in terms of vesting requirements, rate of accrual, and benefit computations is insufficient to justify the type of blanket exemption at issue here. A tax exemption truly intended to account for differences in benefits would not discriminate on the basis of the source of those benefits, but would, rather, discriminate on the basis of the amount of benefits received by individual retirees. Pp. 815-817.

4. Because the State concedes that a refund is appropriate in these circumstances, appellant is entitled to a refund to the extent he has paid

Page 805

taxes pursuant to the invalid Michigan scheme. However, his additional claim for prospective relief from discriminatory taxation should be decided by the state courts, whose special expertise in state law puts them in a better position than this Court to fashion the remedy most appropriate to comply with the constitutional mandate of equal treatment. Pp. 817-818.

160 Mich.App. 98, 408 N.W.2d 433 (1987), reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 818.

Paul S. Davis, for appellant.

Michael K. Kellogg, Washington, D.C., for the U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting appellant, by special leave of Court.

Thomas L. Casey, Lansing, Mich., for appellee.

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Michigan exempts from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the State or its political subdivisions, but levies an income tax on retirement benefits paid by all other employers, including the Federal Government. The question presented by this case is whether Michigan's tax scheme violates federal law.

I

Appellant Paul S. Davis, a Michigan resident, is a former employee of the United States Government. He receives re-

Page 806

tirement benefits pursuant to the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. In each of the years 1979 through 1984, appellant paid Michigan state income tax on his federal retirement benefits in accordance with Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 206.30(1)(f) (Supp.1988).1 That statute defines taxable income in a manner that excludes all retirement benefits received from the State or its political subdivisions, but includes most other forms of retirement benefits.2 The effect of this definition is that the retirement benefits of retired state employees are exempt from state taxation while the benefits received by retired federal employees are not.

In 1984, appellant petitioned for refunds of state taxes paid on his federal retirement benefits between 1979 and 1983. After his request was denied, appellant filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims. Appellant's complaint, which was amended to include the 1984 tax year, averred that his federal retirement benefits were "not legally taxable under

Page 807

the Michigan Income Tax Law" and that the State's inconsistent treatment of state and federal retirement benefits discriminated against federal retirees in violation of 4 U.S.C. § 111, which preserves federal employees' immunity from discriminatory state taxation. See Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, ch. 59, § 4, 53 Stat. 575, codified, as amended, at 4 U.S.C. § 111. The Court of Claims, however, denied relief. No. 84-9451 (Oct. 30, 1985), App. to Juris. Statement A10.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. 160 Mich.App. 98, 408 N.W.2d 433 (1987). The court first rejected appellant's claim that 4 U.S.C. § 111 invalidated the State's tax on appellant's federal benefits. Noting that § 111 applies only to federal "employees," the court determined that appellant's status under federal law was that of an "annuitant" rather than an employee. As a consequence, the court concluded that § 111 "has no application to [Davis], since [he] cannot be considered an employee within the meaning of that act." Id., at 104, 408 N.W.2d, at 435.

The Michigan Court of Appeals next rejected appellant's contention that the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity rendered the State's tax treatment of federal retirement benefits unconstitutional. Conceding that "a tax may be held invalid . . . if it operates to discriminate against the federal government and those with whom it deals," id., at 104, 408 N.W.2d, at 436, the court examined the State's justifications for the discrimination under a rational-basis test. Ibid. The court determined that the State's interest in "attracting and retaining . . . qualified employees" was a "legitimate state objective which is rationally achieved by a retirement plan offering economic inducements," and it upheld the statute. Id., at 105, 408 N.W.2d, at 436.

The Supreme Court of Michigan denied appellant's application for leave to appeal. 429 Mich. 854, 412 N.W.2d 220 (1987). We noted probable jurisdiction. 487 U.S. 1217, 108 S.Ct. 2868, 101 L.Ed.2d 904 (1988).

Page 808

II

Appellant places principal reliance on 4...

To continue reading

Request your trial
882 practice notes
  • Surface coal mining hearings and appeals; special rules,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 20, 2003
    • March 20, 2003
    ...(One does not resort to legislative [[Page 13660]] history to cloud a statutory text that is clear); Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (legislative history is irrelevant to the interpretation of an unambiguous statute); Immigration and Naturalization Service v. C......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 22, 2008
    • May 22, 2008
    ...``should not be read as a series of unrelated and isolated provisions'') (citation omitted); Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (``It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to thei......
  • GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL, WATER v. US ex rel. Wilson, No. 08-304.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2009
    ...Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989)). No party here disputes that "congressional" and "[GAO]" refer only to Federal Government sour......
  • Loan Syndications v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16–652 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 22, 2016
    ...& Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989) ).The plaintiff's assertion that Congress was principally concerned with abuses in the "originate-t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
876 cases
  • GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL, WATER v. US ex rel. Wilson, No. 08-304.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2009
    ...Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989)). No party here disputes that "congressional" and "[GAO]" refer only to Federal Government sour......
  • Loan Syndications v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16–652 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 22, 2016
    ...& Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989) ).The plaintiff's assertion that Congress was principally concerned with abuses in the "originate-t......
  • New Hampshire Lottery Comm'n v. Rosen, No. 19-1835
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 20, 2021
    ...v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Mich. Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989) ). Each party argues that application of its preferred canon of construction requires its desir......
  • Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-60821
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 12, 2019
    ...and "'fit[ting], if possible, all [the statute's] parts into an harmonious whole.'" Id. at 133 (quoting Davis v. Mich. Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989); Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995); FTC v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)) (brackets added). Addit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT