Gillette Commercial Operations N. Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, Docket Nos. 325258
Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
Docket Number | 325528,326039,Docket Nos. 325258,325525,325541,325529,325523,326136.,326123,326110,325522,325515 through 325518,326080,325972,325974,326075,325526,325532 through 325535,325475 through 325492,325520,325505 through 325511 |
Citation | 878 N.W.2d 891,312 Mich. App. 394 |
Parties | GILLETTE COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS NORTH AMERICA & SUBSIDIARIES v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by June Summers, Lansing Haas and Brian T. Quinn, East Lansing) and Silverstein & Pomerantz LLP (by Amy Silverstein and Edwin Antolin ) for Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC (by Clifford W. Taylor, Lansing, Gregory A. Nowak, Michael P. Coakley, Detroit and David G. King, Ann Arbor), for Yaskawa America, Inc., Rainier Investment Management, Inc., and others.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by Daniel L. Stanley, Lansing and Brian T. Quinn, East Lansing) for Sonoco Products Company.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by Patrick R. Van Tiflin, Daniel L. Stanley, Lansing and Brian T. Quinn, East Lansing) for Anheuser–Busch, LLC, Ingram Micro, Inc., and others.
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (by Brian R. Tumm ) and Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP (by Jonathan A. Feldman and Eric S. Tresh ) for Lubrizol Corporation.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, and Eric M. Jamison, Zachary C. Larsen, Michael R. Bell, Scott L. Damich, Emily C. Zillgitt, and Randi M. Merchant, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Department of Treasury.
Richard D. Pomp in propria persona.
Before: MURRAY, P.J., and JANSEN and METER, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, numerous foreign1 corporations doing business in Michigan appeal as of right the trial court's orders granting summary disposition to defendant, the Michigan Department of Treasury, pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(1), and dismissing their complaints.
These cases involve a significant number of state and federal constitutional challenges to 2014 PA 282, which the Legislature—taking the cue from the Supreme Court in Int'l Business Machines Corp. v. Dep't. of Treasury, 496 Mich. 642, 852 N.W.2d 865 (2014) (IBM )—enacted to retroactively rescind Michigan's membership in the Multistate Tax Compact (the Compact), precluding foreign corporations from utilizing a three-factor apportionment formula previously available under the Compact. See former MCL 205.581 et seq., as enacted by 1969 PA 343. In a well-written and well-reasoned opinion, the trial court rejected each of the constitutional challenges.2 For the reasons expressed below, so do we. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's final orders of dismissal.
Rather than re-creating the wheel, we adopt the trial court's recitation of the background facts leading to these lawsuits:
Between 2011 and 2015 these multistate taxpayers all filed suit in the Court of Claims seeking refunds due under the Compact that had been refused by Treasury on the ground that the only apportionment method available was that established by the MBT. Most of the cases were filed prior to the Supreme Court's resolution of IBM, so the trial court prudently held the cases in abeyance pending that decision. Ultimately, however, the case was resolved not by the IBM decision, but by passage of 2014 PA 282, at least once the trial court upheld the statute against plaintiffs' constitutional challenges. We now turn our attention to those same constitutional arguments.
The trial court entered summary disposition in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Health Net, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue
...; Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd. , 62 Cal. 4th 468, 483, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 486, 363 P.3d 94 ; Gillette Commercial Operations v. Dep't of Treasury , 312 Mich.App. 394, 878 N.W.2d 891 (2015), appeal den. , 499 Mich. 960, 880 N.W.2d 230, 232 (2016), cert. den., ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2157,......
-
In re Forfeiture of 2000 GMC Denali & Contents
...constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving the law's invalidity. Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 312 Mich.App. 394, 414–415, 878 N.W.2d 891 (2015). The challenging party must overcome a heavy burden because "[s]tatutes are pres......
-
Doe v. Dep't of Corr.
... ... Dept of Corrections (On Rehearing) , 232 Mich. App ... leave applications filed in this Court in Docket Nos. 321013 and 321756. This Court denied leave ... burden of proving the laws invalidity." Gillette Commercial Operations North America & s v. Dept of Treasury , 312 Mich. App. 394, 414415, 878 N.W.2d 891 ... ...
-
Taylor Sch. Dist. v. Rhatigan, Docket No. 326128.
...authorized by the Constitution, of its power to regulate commerce.’ "); see also Gillette Commercial Ops. North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 312 Mich.App. 394, 414, 878 N.W.2d 891 (2015), quoting Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176, 190, 103 S.Ct. 2296, 76 L.Ed.2d 497 (1983) (......