Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.501 (2026)
City income tax act; short title.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
CITY INCOME TAX ACT
Act 284 of 1964
141.501 City income tax act; short title.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "city income tax act".
History: 1964, Act 284, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Stone v. State, 638 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Stone v. State, 638 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “[41] MCL 141.501 et seq. [42] Emphasis added. [43] See MCR 7.”
Commuter Tax Ass'n of Metro. Detroit v. City of Detroit, 311 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Plaintiffs brought this action for declarátory judgment on the constitutionality of 1981 PA 60 , which amends portions of the City Income Tax Act, MCL 141.501 et seq.; MSA 5.3194(1) et seq.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The Tribunal held that Apex did not “do business” in Detroit within the meaning of the city income tax act, MCL 141.501 et seq., because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The Tribunal held that Apex did not “do business” in Detroit within the meaning of the city income tax act, MCL 141.501 et seq., because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.”
Bully v. Gen. Motors Corp., 328 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “As stated in Commuter Tax Ass’n v Detroit, 109 Mich App 667, 671-672 ; 311 NW2d 449 (1981), where the Court rejected the contention that a 1981 amendment to the City Income Tax Act, MCL 141.501 et seq.; MSA 5.3194(1) et seq.”
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020). “1 The Michigan Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal) concluded that 1 The UCITO is contained within Chapter 2 of the City Income Tax Act, MCL 141.501 et seq. 1964 PA 284 . under § 23 of the UCITO, MCL 141.”
William Sherman v. City of St Joseph (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “They contend that they are not subject to the income tax because the provisions of the Act 425 agreement that split their voting and taxing rights violated the City Income Tax Act (CITA), MCL 141.501 et seq. In essence, because they were not permitted to vote on the income-tax…”
Phillip Hofmeister v. City of Jackson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant assessed a city income tax under its Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance, which adopted Michigan’s City Income Tax Act (CITA), MCL 141.501 et seq., by reference. Defendant levied a 0.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The Tribunal held that Apex did not “do business” in Detroit within the meaning of the city income tax act, MCL 141.501 et seq., because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.