Auto test in Michigan

2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina

2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina

2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina

2015“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v New Jersey Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989).

2020A substantial nexus is established when a foreign seller ‘avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business’ in that jurisdiction.” Id., citing Polar Tankers, Inc v City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1, 11 , 129 S Ct 2277 , 174 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). 4 The Court in Wayfair further concluded that stare decisis did not bar reconsideration of Quill and Bellas Hess.

2020A substantial nexus is established when a foreign seller ‘avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business’ in that jurisdiction.” Id., citing Polar Tankers, Inc v City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1, 11 , 129 S Ct 2277 , 174 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). 4 The Court in Wayfair further concluded that stare decisis did not bar reconsideration of Quill and Bellas Hess.

2020Complete Auto, 430 US at 279 ; see also Gillette, 198 Mich App at 313-314 .

2020In the absence of the physical presence rule, the Court in Wayfair stated that “the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applies to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State.” Id. at ___; 138 S Ct at 2099 , citing Complete Auto, 430 US, at 279 .

2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina

2016“A tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test if it is facially discriminatory, has a discriminatory purpose, or has the effect of unduly burdening interstate commerce.” Caterpillar, -11- 440 Mich at 422 , citing Amerada Hess Corp v NJ Dep’t of Treasury, 490 US 66, 75 ; 109 S Ct 1617 ; 104 L Ed 2d 58 (1989). [Gillette, 312 Mich App at 430-431 .] Under this test, Gillette found that PA 282 (1) is not facially discriminatory because it does not, “on its face, create any classification based on a taxpayer’s state of origin or the location of commerce[;]” (2) does not have a discrimina

1997Finally, the court in Orvis, supra at 178 , noted that in a recent case, Oklahoma Tax Comm v Jefferson Lines, Inc, 514 US_; 115 S Ct *411 1331; 131 L Ed 2d 261 (1995), the Supreme Court “did not apply a substantial physical presence test, but instead strictly utilized the substantial nexus prong of the Complete Auto test without even passing reference to the substantiality of the physical presence of the vendor ... in the taxing State.”.

1992In Goldberg, supra at 266-267 , the United States Supreme Court provided an explanation of what the fourth prong requires.

1992In Goldberg, supra at 266-267 , the United States Supreme Court provided an explanation of what the fourth prong requires.

1992Indeed, last Term, in DH Holmes [Co, Ltd v McNamara, 486 US 24, 32 ; 108 S Ct 1619 ; 100 L Ed 2d 21 (1988)], we noted that a taxpayer’s receipt of police and fire protection, the use of public roads and mass transit, and the other advantages of civilized society satisfied the requirement that the tax be fairly related to benefits provided by the State to the taxpayer.

1992Indeed, last Term, in DH Holmes [Co, Ltd v McNamara, 486 US 24, 32 ; 108 S Ct 1619 ; 100 L Ed 2d 21 (1988)], we noted that a taxpayer’s receipt of police and fire protection, the use of public roads and mass transit, and the other advantages of civilized society satisfied the requirement that the tax be fairly related to benefits provided by the State to the taxpayer.

1992"The requisite 'nexus’ is supplied if [Caterpillar] avails itself of the 'substantial privilege of carrying on business’ within the State . . . .” Mobil Oil Corp v Comm’r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 US 425, 437 ; 100 S Ct 1223 ; 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980).

1992"The requisite 'nexus’ is supplied if [Caterpillar] avails itself of the 'substantial privilege of carrying on business’ within the State . . . .” Mobil Oil Corp v Comm’r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 US 425, 437 ; 100 S Ct 1223 ; 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980).