Caterpillar, Inc v. Department of Treasury
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Following a bench trial, the Court of Claims essentially made three rulings: (1) the capital acquisition deduction (cad) provisions of the Single Business Tax Act (sbta) violate the Commerce Clause of the federal constitution, US Const, art I, § 8; (2) under both state and federal law, its decision with regard to the constitutionality of the cad applies prospectively; and (3) the correct remedy is to sever the cad provisions from the act. Plaintiff appeals the court’s latter two rulings. We affirm in part and modify in part.
A brief background on the sbta and the cad deductions is in order.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ScheinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Caterpillar, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Jefferson Smurfit Corp. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. PerryDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1994
- Fonger v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
- Caterpillar, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 1992