People v. Muzzin & Vincenti, Inc., Docket Nos. 23112

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Citation: 74 Mich.App. 634,254 N.W.2d 599
• Docket Number: 23113,Docket Nos. 23112
• Parties: PEOPLE of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUZZIN & VINCENTI, INC., Arthur Muzzin, Irene Astelii, Defendants, and Rose Sarczowski, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1977

Page 599

254 N.W.2d 599 74 Mich.App. 634 PEOPLE of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MUZZIN & VINCENTI, INC., Arthur Muzzin, Irene Astelii, Defendants,
and
Rose Sarczowski, Defendant-Appellant. Docket Nos. 23112, 23113. Court of Appeals of Michigan. March 31, 1977.
Released for Publication June 21, 1977.

[74 Mich.App. 635] Merrill, Tatham & Rosati by A. D. Rosati, Southfield, for appellant.

Page 600

City of Detroit Law Department by Victor G. Marrocco, Asst. Corp. Counsel and Carl Rashid, Jr., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., P. J., and KAUFMAN and RILEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are asked to decide whether the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance, M.C.L.A. § 141.601 et seq.; M.S.A. § 5.3194(11) et seq. which was adopted by plaintiff ¹ imposes criminal liability on corporate officers for the failure of the corporation to file a withholding return and pay the monies withheld.

[74 Mich.App. 636] During the latter part of 1971 appellant held the office of secretary in a now defunct corporation which had transacted business in Detroit. At a bench trial in Recorders Court, Traffic and Ordinance Division, appellant was found guilty on two counts: 1) wilful failure, neglect or refusal to file the return for the third quarter of 1971, M.C.L.A. § 141.699(a); M.S.A. § 5.3194(109)(a), and 2) wilful failure to pay the tax withheld for the latter half of 1971, M.C.L.A. § 141.699(c); M.S.A. § 5.3194(109)(c). In addition, the corporation pled no contest to charges of failing to file withholding tax returns for the third quarter of 1971 and failing to pay to plaintiff taxes withheld for the third and fourth quarters of that year. Her appeal was affirmed by the Wayne County Circuit Court; and leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court, 394 Mich. 793 (1975), granted leave, remanding the case to this Court as on leave granted. G.C.R. 1963, 865.1(7).

As would be expected, resolution of this case turns on the language of the statute and the guidance provided by certain well settled rules of statutory construction.

The Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance provides in pertinent part:

"(2) 'Person' means a natural person, partnership, fiduciary, association, corporation or other entity. When used in any provision imposing a criminal penalty, 'person' as applied to an association means the parties or members thereof, and as applied to a corporation, the officers thereof." M.C.L.A. § 141.608(2); M.S.A. § 5.3194(18)(2). (Emphasis added.)

"Sec. 99. Each of the following violations of this ordinance is a misdemeanor and is punishable, in addition to the interest and penalties provided under the ordinance, by a fine not exceeding $500.00, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 90 days or both:

[74 Mich.App. 637] "(a) Wilful failure, neglect or refusal to file a return required by the ordinance.

"(b) Wilful failure, neglect or refusal to pay the tax, penalty or interest imposed by the ordinance.

"(c) Wilful failure of an employer to withhold or pay to the city a tax as required by the ordinance.

"(d) Refusal to permit the city or an agent or employee appointed by the administrator in writing to examine the books, records and papers of a person subject to the ordinance.

"(e) Knowingly filing an incomplete, false or fraudulent return.

"(f) Attempting to do or doing anything whatever in order to avoid full disclosure of the amount of income or to avoid the payment of any or all of the tax." M.C.L.A. § 141.699; M.S.A. §...