Miller v. State Dept. of Treasury (Revenue Division), 34
| Decision Date | 07 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 34,34 |
| Citation | 188 N.W.2d 795,385 Mich. 296 |
| Parties | Donald A. MILLER and Geraldine B. Miller, his wife, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. STATE of Michigan, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (REVENUE DIVISION), Defendant- Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., and William D. Dexter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
A summary judgment of unconstitutionality of P.A.1965, No. 335, was entered by the circuit judge on December 11, 1967. 1 Then, as now, admission to a State mental institution might result from a court-ordered commitment 2 based on proceedings initiated by persons not related to the handicapped person, the statute providing:
'The father, mother, husband, wife, brother, sister, child, if the petitioner be of legal age, or guardian of a person alleged to be mentally ill, mentally handicapped or epileptic, or the sheriff or supervisor of any township, or county agent, or by any other person whom a judge of probate, upon examination into the facts and circumstances of any particular case, shall determine would be a proper person to make such petition, or any peace officer within the county in which such alleged mentally diseased person resides, or may be, may petition the probate court of said county for an order directing the admission of said person to a hospital, home or institution for the care of the mentally ill, mentally handicapped or epileptic, such petition to contain a statement giving the facts and not the conclusions upon which the allegation of such mental disease is based and because of which the application for the order is made.' M.C.L.A. § 330.21; Stat.Ann.1969 Rev. § 14.811.
Pursuant to statute, 3 the State determines the charge for the care and treatment of mental patients in State hospitals * * *. (Emphasis added.)
by an average daily rate which may not exceed the anticipated operating cost, exclusive of capital outlay. The amount is fixed at the beginning of each fiscal year. 4 Section 6 of the act under challenge here in part provides:
The above provision obviously refers to the initial filing by the responsible relative and the resultant initial billing period by the State.
Section 7 of the act sets forth the requirements of the original form and the accompanying information in these words:
'The form shall contain the name of the patient; the name of the institution to which the patient has been admitted; the name and address of the relatives liable for the care and maintenance of the patient under the provisions of this act; the schedule of liability set forth in section 8; the net taxable income of the relative Last reported to the United States internal revenue service for federal income tax purposes; the names and ages of dependents of the relative; and such other information as may be required by rules adopted by the department of revenue.' (Emphasis added.) M.C.L.A. § 330.657.
Section 8 provides in part:
'(1) The amount of monthly liability of a relative for the care and maintenance of a mentally retarded person under the provisions of this act shall be originally determined by use of the following schedule:
Net Taxable Monthly Net Taxable Monthly
Income Liability Income Liability
$ 0 to 4,999 0 * * *
5,000 to 5,499 20 19,000 to 19,499 190
5,500 to 5,999 25 19,500 to 19,999 200
* * * 20,000 and over 210."
When these sections are compared, it is clear the legislature intended that the 'net taxable income' to be used in determining monthly liability under the schedule appearing in section 8 of the act is the same amount prescribed by section 9 of the act, which is as follows:
'By May 1 of each year the department of revenue shall send a renewal form to all relatives liable for the care and maintenance of a patient under the provisions of this act. The renewal form shall contain the same information as the original form but shall include the most recent information concerning the net taxable income of the relative and he accompanied by a signed copy of the relative's income tax return submitted to the United States internal revenue service. The renewal form and the signed copy of the return shall be filed with the department of revenue by the succeeding June 1. The department of revenue shall reascertain the amount of liability Section 10 of P.A.1965, No. 335, authorizes a responsible relative to request at any time a new determination of liability by the Department of Revenue. The statute continues:
under the provisions of this act and bill the relative accordingly for the period commencing on the succeeding July 1 and continuing through the following June 30. Payments by the relative shall be made as if the patient were first admitted on July 1.' (Emphasis added.) M.C.L.A. § 330.659.
The deficiency of this legislation is glaring. No provision is made for notice of hearing. There is no statutory designation of a hearing officer or examiner to make a determination either from evidence or the submitted information. Detroit Edison Co. v. Corporation & Securities Commission (1960), 361 Mich. 150, 105 N.W.2d 110. The statute contains no legal requirements or provisions to be applied to the facts by the Department of Revenue in redetermining liability. It operates with an uncontrolled discretion. There are no legislative standards or guidelines for the exercise of the rulemaking power. Osius v. City of St. Clair Shores (1956), 344 Mich. 693, 75 N.W.2d 25; McKibbin v. Corporation & Securities Commission (1963), 369 Mich. 69, 119 N.W.2d 557; Fowler v. Board of Registration in Chiropody (1965), 374 Mich. 254, 132 N.W.2d 82; Milford v. People's Community Hospital Authority (1968), 380 Mich. 49, 5 155 N.W.2d 835.
I would affirm the trial court and the Court of Appeals. No costs, a public question being involved.
No. 335, 1 requiring certain relatives to reimburse the State of Michigan in part for the money expended for the maintenance and care of a mentally retarded child. A complaint against the department of revenue was filed in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, alleging that P.A.1965, No. 335, was unconstitutional and requesting relief from its threatened enforcement. In a summary judgment dated December 11, 1967, the circuit court held the act unconstitutional on various grounds; 2 the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit [385 Mich. 309] court, but on different grounds. 3 It held P.A.1965, No. 335, unconstitutional because (1) it found that a formula of reimbursement which is keyed to the net taxable income as shown on a Federal income tax return is in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, since certain actual income of a taxpayer is not required to be included in the computed net taxable income for Federal income tax purposes; and (2) the determination of net taxable income of the responsible relative under the act is controlled by the congress of the United States and the use of this standard by the Michigan legislature constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the congress. 4 We granted leave to appeal. 5
THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Public Act 335 was enacted in 1965 and is entitled 'Liability of Relatives of Institutionalized Mentally Retarded Persons.' 6 The act imposes an absolute obligation to pay upon the husband, wife, father and mother of an institutionalized mentally retarded person. 7 Once the mentally retarded person is admitted to an institution under the jurisdiction of the department of mental health, each liable relative is required to provide the department of revenue with a signed copy of his most recent income tax return filed with the United I consider seriatim three arguments advanced by plaintiffs attacking the constitutionality of the instant legislation.
States internal revenue service. 8 The department of revenue then originally determines the amount of monthly liability of the relative in accordance with a graduated schedule set forth in the act. 9 Failure or refusal to file the necessary forms (including the federal income tax return) results in an imposition of maximum monthly liability under the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan v. Milliken
... ... William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the State of Michigan, ... Frank J. Kelley, Attorney ... 34] manage BCBSM has to any significant degree been ... Miller v. Dep't of Treasury, 385 Mich. 296, 334, 188 ... ...
-
Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals
... ... Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn (by Ronald S. Longhofer, Andrew ... Caterpillar, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 440 Mich. 400, 413, 488 N.W.2d 182 (1992) ; ... which states: "The legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a house of ... rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a federal official, final and binding with ... ...
-
State of Mich. v. First Nat. Bank of Ariz.
...586, 43 Cal.Rptr. 329, 400 P.2d 321, and Miller v. State Department of Revenue, 18 Mich.App. 145, 171 N.W.2d 3 (1969), aff'd 385 Mich. 296, 188 N.W.2d 795. Judgment HAIRE, C. J., and EUBANK, J., concur. ...