Price Paper Corp. v. City of Detroit, 202 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Price Paper Corp. v. City of Detroit, 202 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“plaintiffs failure to exercise the existing statutory remedy within the prescribed time limit does not deny the constitutional tax exemption on imports. it does, however, foreclose further assertion of the exemption in the courts.”
20 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Rusha v. Department of Corrections (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 2014 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
plaintiffs failure to exercise the existing statutory remedy within the prescribed time limit does not deny the constitutional tax exemption on imports. it does, however, foreclose further assertion of the exemption in the courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Imerman Screw Products Co. v. City of Hamtramck
Mich. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
This argument, assuming it to be true, was laid to rest in Price Paper Corp v City of Detroit, 42 Mich App 488, 491 [ 202 NW2d 523, 525 ] (1972) where a taxpayer was denied refund on taxes paid on immune property because it had not followed proper procedural prerequisites; in that case the timely protest and filing of suit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Farmers Branch v. American Honda Motor Co.
Tex. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Some of the more recent state and federal court decisions which apply the “original package” doctrine to imported goods held for sale are: Wages v. Michelin Tire Corporation, 233 Ga. 712 , 214 S.E.2d 349 (1975, cert. granted); Wilson v. County of Wake, 19 N.C.App. 536 , 199 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1973); Price Paper Corporation v. Detroit, 42 Mich.App. 488 , 202 N.W.2d 523, 525 (1972); Sterling Liquor Distributors, Inc. v. County of Orange, 3 Cal.App.3d 510 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 571 , (1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 822 , 91 S.Ct. 43 , 27 L.Ed.2d 50 (1970); Tricon, Inc. v. King County, 60 Wash.2d 392 , 3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Farmers Branch v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2×)
Tex. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Some of the more recent state and federal court decisions which apply the “original package” doctrine to imported goods held for sale are: Wages v. Michelin Tire Corporation, 233 Ga. 712 , 214 S.E.2d 349 (1975) cert, granted; Wilson v. County of Wake, 19 N.C.App. 536 , 199 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1973); Price Paper Corporation v. Detroit, 42 Mich. App. 488 , 202 N.W.2d 523, 525 (1972); Sterling Liquor Distributors Inc. v. County of Orange, 3 Cal.App.3d 510 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 571 (1970) cert. denied, 400 U.S. 822 , 91 S.Ct. 43 , 27 L.Ed.2d 50 (1970); Tricon, Inc. v. King County, 60 Wash.2d 392 , 374 P…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Noll Equipment Co v. City of Detroit
Mich. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
We think Price Paper Corp v Detroit, 42 Mich App 488, 490 ; 202 NW2d 523, 524-525 (1972), is controlling: "Defendants claim the newsprint lost the character of an import.
discussed Cited "see" Szymanski v. City of Westland (2×)
Mich. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Price Paper Corp v Detroit, 42 Mich App 488, 491 ; 202 NW2d 523 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Price Paper Corporation
v.
City of Detroit
Docket 11811-11815, 11838, 11839.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Aug 29, 1972.
202 N.W.2d 523
Kenneth Murray and Brownson Murray, for plaintiff., Michael M. Glusac, Corporation Counsel, and Arthur Yim and Lawrence W Morgan, Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendant City of Detroit., Aloysius J. Suchy, Corporation Counsel, and William F. Koney, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for defendant Wayne County.
Brennan, Quinn, O'Hara.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (2) · First Circuit (1)
O’Hara, J.

Defendants, City of Detroit and the County of Wayne, appeal the separate successive determinations of the trial court granting plaintiff recovery of certain ad valorem taxes paid under protest.

The plaintiff, Price Paper Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is in the business of importing newsprint from Canada for resale to various newspapers in the United States. A principal customer is the Detroit Shopping News. In 1967 plaintiff began to rent storage space for its imported newsprint at the facilities of Safran Printing Co. instead of placing it in public warehouses as it had formerly done. At about the same time, Safran became the. printer for plaintiffs customer, the Detroit Shopping News. Plaintiffs paper remained stored in its original wrappings until such time as Safran readied it for the presses. At that time, according to plaintiffs supply contract with the Detroit Shopping News, the paper would be identified to the contract and title would pass from Price to the Shopping News.

Defendants levied an ad valorem tax on the rolls of newsprint stored with Safran commencing with[*490] the year 1967. Plaintiff paid under protest, claiming an import exemption under the Federal Constitution, US Const, art I, § 10(2).

Defendants claim the newsprint lost the character of an import. Inasmuch as the paper rolls stored with Safran were destined for the Shopping News, printed on the premises, and were readily available as part of the printer’s working inventory, they thereby passed into the use for which they had been imported, i.e., as part of the current operating requirements of the publishing process. Hooven & Allison Co v Evatt, Tax Commissioner, 324 US 652; 65 S Ct 870; 89 L Ed 1252 (1945); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Bowers, Tax Commissioner, 358 US 534; 79 S Ct 383; 3 L Ed 2d 490 (1959), and see Knight Newspapers, Inc v Detroit, 16 Mich App 438 (1969). We find, however, the so-called "use doctrine” relied on in those cases inapplicable to the cases presently before us and to this plaintiff. Unlike Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, the United States Plywood Corporation (second plaintiff in Youngstown), or Knight Newspapers, plaintiff here imported the merchandise for resale and not for its own manufacturing or publishing operation. Until the sale is consummated and the paper identified to the contract the holding in Detroit v Lake Superior Paper Co, 202 Mich 22 (1918), controls, i.e., the right to resell imported goods free of prior local property tax goes along with the right to bring them into the country. We affirm the lower court summary judgments to return the assessments.

There remains one final matter for determination. In two of the cases joined here on appeal, plaintiff was denied recovery of the illegally assessed taxes for having failed to bring suit within 30 days of payment, MCLA 211.53; MSA 7.97.[*491] Plaintiff urges that payments constitutionally void must be repaid irrespective of compliance with the statute of limitations. We disagree. The provision of the Federal Constitution prohibiting state taxation of imports is not self-executing. Plaintiff’s failure to exercise the existing statutory remedy within the prescribed time limit does not deny the constitutional tax exemption on imports. It does, however, foreclose further assertion of the exemption in the courts. Even in the case of an illegal tax, failure to bring suit within 30 days after payment acts as a complete bar to recovery. Norton Twp v Cockerill, 265 Mich 405 (1933); Lingle v Elmwood Twp, 142 Mich 194 (1905). The trial court’s dismissal of suit in these two instances is likewise affirmed.

All concurred.