Search for: "TAXPAYERS OF MICHIGAN V STATE OF MICHIGAN "
Results 61 - 80
of 231
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2018, 6:30 pm
In an important decision, a Michigan federal district court in Dumont v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am
Supreme Court in South Dakota v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 7:47 am
Stowers Chair in Law & Religion Michigan State University College of Law. [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 5:12 am
The overall test, the Complete Auto test, does not change: a state law is only valid if there is (1) substantial nexus, a sufficient connection between the state and the taxpayer; (2) fair apportionment, the state not taxing beyond its fair share of interstate commerce; (3) nondiscrimination, the state not taxing out-of-state activity or taxpayers while exempting in-state activity or taxpayers; and the tax is (4) fairly… [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
Table 1: Sales Tax Treatment of Food is Haphazard in State Tax Codes Unequal Treatment of Groceries, Candy, and Soda in State Tax Codes as of January 1, 2018 State State General Sales Tax Grocery Treatment Candy Treated the Same as Groceries? [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 2:31 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals, Michigan-based Judge Raymond M. [read post]
7 Jul 2018, 12:29 pm
In United States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 8:28 am
To proponents, they help align the property tax with the taxpayer’s ability to pay. [read post]
21 Jan 2018, 2:35 pm
Friday, I argued that there's mo First Amendment problem with compulsory union agency fees in Janus v. [read post]
19 Jan 2018, 2:02 pm
In Abood v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 6:35 am
The Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill Corp. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 5:49 pm
The upgrades are expected to save taxpayer money. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 6:41 am
Ohio’s tangible personal property tax, levied by local taxing authorities alongside real property taxes, raised a combined $1.7 billion in local revenues in fiscal year 2005, much of which flowed to school districts ($1.2 billion), though counties ($319 million), cities and villages ($92 million), and townships ($67 million) also leaned on the tax as a source of revenue.[13] Tangible personal property taxes are “taxpayer active,” meaning that taxpayers bear the… [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 10:21 am
Today two same-sex couples and a Michigan taxpayer filed suit in a Michigan federal district court challenging the state's practice of contracting out foster-care and adoptive placement to social service agencies that apply religious criteria in placing children. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 6:55 am
State v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 2:30 pm
Michigan Department of Treasury 16-698 Issues: (1) Whether a state, without violating the constitutional bar against the impairment of contracts, can retroactively withdraw from the Multistate Tax Compact so as to divest taxpayers of benefits under that compact for a period of 6 1/2 years before that withdrawal; and (2) whether, consistent with due process, a state can, by statute, change its tax laws retroactively for a period of more than six years, when… [read post]
17 May 2017, 11:02 am
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 16-833, which the court denied, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. [read post]
15 May 2017, 1:03 pm
This may have been just another disappointment to Taxpayers, who are regularly disappointed by the creative and nefarious ways in which states try to drum up revenue. [read post]
10 May 2017, 6:26 am
Michigan Department of Treasury 16-698 Issues: (1) Whether a state, without violating the constitutional bar against the impairment of contracts, can retroactively withdraw from the Multistate Tax Compact so as to divest taxpayers of benefits under that compact for a period of 6 1/2 years before that withdrawal; and (2) whether, consistent with due process, a state can, by statute, change its tax laws retroactively for a period of more than six years, when… [read post]
9 May 2017, 7:19 am
Michigan Department of Treasury, 16-698 Issues: (1) Whether a state, without violating the constitutional bar against the impairment of contracts, can retroactively withdraw from the Multistate Tax Compact so as to divest taxpayers of benefits under that compact for a period of 6 1/2 years before that withdrawal; and (2) whether, consistent with due process, a state can, by statute, change its tax laws retroactively for a period of more than six years, when the… [read post]
