Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 141 / Act 284 of 1964
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.604 (2026)

Definitions; C.

✓ 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


141.604 Definitions; C.

Sec. 4.

    (1) "City" means the city adopting the ordinance.

    (2) "Compensation" means salary, pay or emolument given as compensation or wages for work done or services rendered, in cash or in kind, and includes but is not limited to the following: salaries, wages, bonuses, commissions, fees, tips, incentive payments, severance pay, vacation pay and sick pay.

    (3) "Corporation" means a corporation or a joint stock association organized under the laws of the United States, this state, or any other state, territory, or foreign country or dependency.

History: 1964, Act 284, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020). · cites it 7× “” MCL 141.604(2). 8 (b) In the case of an employee compensated directly on the volume of business secured by him, such as a salesman on a commission basis, the amount received by him for business attributable to his efforts in the city.”
Wyckoff v. City of Detroit, 591 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “[MCL 141.604(2); MSA 5.3194(14)(2).] From a reading of these ucrro provisions, we conclude that a city is empowered to levy a tax on the compensation of a nonresident of that city only for work done or services rendered within the city.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.604(2) — 2 cases
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020). “” MCL 141.604(2). 8 (b) In the case of an employee compensated directly on the volume of business secured by him, such as a salesman on a commission basis, the amount received by him for business attributable to his efforts in the city.”
Wyckoff v. City of Detroit, 591 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “[MCL 141.604(2); MSA 5.3194(14)(2).] From a reading of these ucrro provisions, we conclude that a city is empowered to levy a tax on the compensation of a nonresident of that city only for work done or services rendered within the city.”
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.