Comerica, Inc. v. Department of Treasury

Docket No. 161661 (Mich. June 7, 2022) · Michigan Supreme Court · June 7, 2022 · No. No. 161661

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that tax credits assigned to a Comerica subsidiary passed by operation of law to another subsidiary when the banks merged under the Michigan Banking Code. Because the transfer was not an assignment, the Single Business Tax Act's prohibition on subsequent assignments did not bar Comerica from claiming the credits for tax years 2008–2011. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that the Tax Tribunal erred by granting the Department of Treasury partial summary disposition.

Holdings

  1. Tax credits lawfully acquired by Comerica's Michigan bank subsidiary passed by operation of law under MCL 487.13703(1) to Comerica's Texas bank subsidiary when the banks merged.
  2. The SBTA provisions prohibiting an assignee from subsequently assigning credits did not bar the credits from passing to the Texas bank by operation of law.
  3. The negative-implication canon did not apply because the SBTA's express regulation of assignments did not establish that the Legislature intended to regulate every other method by which credits could change hands.
  4. Even assuming the strict-construction canon applies to statutes regulating possession of tax credits, it is a last-resort rule and did not apply because the SBTA's meaning was discernible through ordinary interpretive methods.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether tax credits lawfully assigned to a Michigan bank subsidiary passed to a Texas bank subsidiary by operation of law when the banks merged.
  2. Whether the Single Business Tax Act's prohibition on an assignee's subsequent assignment of credits explicitly or implicitly barred the credits from passing through the merger.
  3. Whether the negative-implication canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, required treating the SBTA's regulation of assignments as a prohibition on other forms of credit transfer.
  4. Whether the canon of strict construction against tax exemptions required construing the SBTA provisions against Comerica.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Miller v Clark, 56 Mich 337; 23 NW 35 (1885)(followed)
  • Kim v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 493 Mich 98; 825 NW2d 329 (2012)(followed)
  • United States v Seattle–First Nat'l Bank, 321 US 583, 587–588; 64 S Ct 713; 88 L Ed 844 (1944)(followed)
  • Detroit v Redford Twp, 253 Mich 453, 456; 235 NW 217 (1931)(followed)
  • Bronner v Detroit, 507 Mich 158, 173; 968 NW2d 310 (2021)(followed)
  • Chevron USA Inc v Echazabal, 536 US 73, 81; 122 S Ct 2045; 153 L Ed 2d 82 (2002)(followed)
  • United States v Vonn, 535 US 55, 65; 122 S Ct 1043; 152 L Ed 2d 90 (2002)(followed)
  • TOMRA of North America, Inc v Dep't of Treasury, 505 Mich 333, 340–343; 952 NW2d 384 (2020)(followed)
  • Canterbury Health Care v Dep't of Treasury, 220 Mich App 23, 313; 558 NW2d 444 (1996)(discussed)
  • In re Brackett's Estate, 342 Mich 195, 205; 69 NW2d 164 (1955)(discussed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…