Wednesday, 23 January, 2019

Justices Won't Hear Indiana's Appeal in Triple Murder Case

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington U.S A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington U.S
Nellie Chapman | 24 May, 2017, 02:10

The corporations urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their cases, saying that retroactive tax laws are becoming more common in the United States as a "ready source of revenue" for governments. The repeal was challenged by many taxpayers, and in March 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed all of the complaints, stating that the repeal of the apportionment election did not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Dot Foods, Inc. filed a cert petition requesting the Court to review the Washington Legislature's retroactive change of an exemption from tax.5 The period of retroactivity in this case (as counted by Dot Foods) is 27 years. Unfortunately, courts are misapplying Carlton and upholding retroactive tax laws of increasingly long periods, to the point where states can essentially do whatever they please, unsettling expectations, and saddling taxpayers with years of unanticipated tax obligations. But even after issuing this letter ruling, the Department of Revenue assessed Dot Foods for sales made after January 1, 2000. The overall impact of the case was that the state of MI could be on the hook for more than $1 billion in refund claims.

The Supreme Court is rejecting challenges by IBM, Goodyear and other businesses seeking more than $1 billion in tax refunds from MI.

In 2014, the Michigan Legislature retroactively repealed the Multistate Tax Compact's alternative apportionment formula. Dot accused the state of violating its due process rights.

The cases were Sonoco Products Co. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-687; Skadden, Arps, Slate, etc. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-688; Gillette Commercial Operations v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-697; IBM Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-698; Goodyear, et al. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-699; DirecTV Group Holdings v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-736.