Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pm One, Ltd v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 2000No. Docket 210644Published

1DissentHood, J.

I must respectfully dissent, because I do not believe that the record supports the conclusion reached by the majority.

Petitioner contended that the central depository account merely served as the means for handling the client’s financial affairs. Therefore contends the petitioner, the Tax Tribunal’s determination that payments for goods and services made on behalf of its clients constituted gross receipts was an error at law. Unlike the majority, I disagree. Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a decision by the Michigan Tax Tribunal is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stratton-Cheeseman Management Co. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Georgetown Place Cooperative v. City of TaylorMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v. Salem TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Apcoa, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API