Assume you have an office in the city, and you’re serving clients outside that city – a common scenario. Are your professional services “rendered” in your office’s city and therefore subject to local sales taxation in that city? Or, are your services “rendered” where your client is?
As it commences its 2019-2020 term this October, the Michigan Supreme Court will decide this question in Honigman v Detroit, 322 Mich App 667 (2018), and it’s an issue to which all providers of professional services should pay attention. Honigman is a law firm with an office in Detroit, and like most, if not all, professional services firms, it has clients beyond those city limits.
The City Income Tax Act (CITA), MCL 141.501 et seq., requires certain business taxpayers to calculate taxes based on their activity in the city. Taxable revue is determined in part by using three statutory factors; each of which accounts for revenue attributable to a different aspect of the business: (1) property – the percentage of the taxpayer’s real and personal property located in the city that allows business generation, MCL 141.621; (2) payroll – the percentage accounting for the extent to which a taxpayer’s employees perform work in the city and generate revenue while physically located there, MCL 141.622; and (3) sales – the gross revenue “derived from sales made and services rendered in the city,” MCL 141.623. The Michigan Supreme Court will soon decide the proper interpretation and application of the sales factor.
For the period between 2010 and 2014, pursuant to the CITA, Honigman reported that roughly 11% of its gross revenues were for “services rendered within the city.” Having determined that this figure was more like 50%, the City of Detroit assessed Honigman around $1.1 million in local taxes. Honigman disputed the amount by filing a petition in the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
Honigman argued, and continues to argue, that the phrase “services rendered” in section MCL 141.623 (regarding the sales factor) has a distinct legal meaning, evidenced by the fact the Michigan Legislature used the phrase “services performed” in a different provision of the CITA, MCL 141.622 (regarding the payroll factor). Accordingly, in Honigman’s view, even though it performed client services in Detroit, because those services were delivered to clients outside the city, they were not “rendered within the city.” The city has taken the position that the terms are synonymous, and that because the services were performed within the city, the revenue derived from those services is subject to city tax.
The tax tribunal agreed with the city, but the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with Honigman and reversed the tribunal in a published decision. In addition, the appellate court observed that while the Legislature didn’t elaborate on the meaning of “services rendered” in MCL 141.623, it did explain the meaning of “sales made in the city” under MCL 141.623(1). To that end, the appellate court was persuaded by the Legislature’s “common thread” in the statute—that the location of the taxpayer and the client is irrelevant; what matters is the destination of the service.
The Supreme Court has granted the city’s application for leave to appeal and will now address whether the appellate court correctly construed the phrase “services rendered within the city” in MCL 141.623. Because the Supreme Court granted leave, it will issue an opinion in this case by the end of July 2020, at the latest.
While tax law generally tends to be complex, the issue in this case is rather straightforward—it’s a simple matter of statutory interpretation, but with a great deal of significance. If the Supreme Court affirms the decision of the appellate court, its ruling will provide comforting finality for firms located in cities like Detroit, that deliver a large amount of its services outside those cities. If the Supreme Court reverses the appellate court, the decision would likely disrupt next year’s budget for many professional services firms.
Either way, this case is something to watch.
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Commercial Real Estate
- Business Torts
- Civil Litigation
- Real Estate
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Commercial Leasing
- Damages Recovery
- Commercial Loans
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Shareholder Liability
- Tax Law
- Fraud Activity
- Risk Management
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Cyber Attack
- Biometric Data
- Banking Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Internet Law
- Non-compete Agreements
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
- Maximizing Damages Recovery in Michigan's District Courts Challenged by Jurisdiction Limits
- Proliferation of Security Cameras, Drones Doesn't Necessarily Reduce Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Law
- Does Sympathy or Empathy Have a Place in the Courtroom?
- No Light Yet at End of COVID-19 Real Estate Tunnel
- When are Clear, Unambiguous Contracts Nonetheless Ambiguous?
- What the Future may Hold for Michigan Real Estate Foreclosures and Evictions
- The Dispute Subject to Arbitration, or is it? Who Decides?
- Illinois Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Door on Non-residents' Product Liability Claims Against Non-resident Defendants for Injuries Suffered Outside State
- Supreme Court Rules Fully Funded Pension Plans Cannot be Sued Under ERISA for Mismanagement
- A Day in Someone Else’s Shoes: Can Mortgagees Challenge Ad Valorem Assessments?