Menard Inc. v. Department of Treasury
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
In these consolidated appeals, the issue presented is whether plaintiffs, as retailers, are entitled to a refund pursuant to the bad debt provision, MCL 205.54i, of Michigan’s General Sales Tax Act (GSTA), MCL 205.51 et seq., when the losses were incurred by a third-party financing company. We conclude that plaintiffs are not entitled to the refunds under the bad debt provision, and, in each action, summary disposition in favor of defendants is proper.1
*470I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these cases, plaintiffs, as retailers, entered into agreements with financing companies to issue…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Johnson v. ReccaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
- Titan Insurance Company v. HytenMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
- Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of KentwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
- Whitman v. City of BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 2013
- People v. PeltolaMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Barrow v. City of Detroit Election CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
- Santander Consumer USA Inc v. State TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
- Santander Consumer USA Inc v. State TreasurerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
- Hayes v. Parole BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Detroit Edison Co. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.