Legal Opinion

Menard Inc. v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 12, 2013No. Docket Nos. 310399, 311053, 311261, 311294, and 312168PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Johnson v. ReccaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Titan Insurance Company v. HytenMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Paris Meadows, LLC v. City of KentwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Whitman v. City of BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 2013
  5. People v. PeltolaMichigan Supreme Court · 2011

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Barrow v. City of Detroit Election CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Santander Consumer USA Inc v. State TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Santander Consumer USA Inc v. State TreasurerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Hayes v. Parole BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. Detroit Edison Co. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014

15 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