Brunswick Corp. v. State

(for reversal). Convinced that our four-man majority as it stood last fall was wrong (National-Standard Company v. Department of Treasury [1970], 384 Mich 184) and that our former view of statutory “surplus” was eminently right,* I agree with Judge Quinn when he wrote, for Division 2 (United Airlines, Inc., v. Department of Treasury, 29 Mich App 242, 247):

“Plaintiff’s second attack on the computation of its 1967 franchise fee relates to ‘reserve for deferred federal income taxes’. Plaintiff does not include this item in surplus. Defendant insists it shall be included in surplus. In…