Legal Opinion

Molter v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1993No. 93747, (Calendar No. 6)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.

We must decide whether distributions from a deferred compensation plan, paid to a nonresident, are subject to the state’s income tax if the original contributions to the plan represented earnings from employment in Michigan. Affirming a decision of the Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals ruled that distributions from such a plan are taxable. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I

Plaintiff Molter, while a State of Michigan employee, participated in a deferred compensation plan qualified under § 457 of the Internal Revenue Code (irc).1 He began receiving distributions from his plan account…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. In Re Dodge BrothersMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Armco Steel Corp. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority v. Boards of Supervisors of Five CountiesMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Gosewisch v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Plymouth Township v. Wayne County Board of CommissionersMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Grand Traverse County v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Sharper Image Corp. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Allen v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
  5. Ameritech Publishing, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API