CITY INCOME TAX ACT
Act 284 of 1964
141.605 Definitions; D.
Sec. 5.
"Doing business" means the conduct of any activity with the object of gain or benefit, except that it does not include:
(a) The solicitation of orders by a person or his representative in the city for sales of tangible personal property, which orders are sent outside the city for approval or rejection and, if approved, are filled by shipment or delivery from a point outside the city.
(b) The solicitation of orders by a person or his representative in the city in the name of or for the benefit of a prospective customer of a person, if orders by the customer to such person to enable the customer to fill orders resulting from the solicitation are orders described in paragraph (a).
(c) The mere storage of personal property in the city in a warehouse neither owned nor leased by the taxpayer.
History: 1964, Act 284, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Detroit v. Gen. Foods Corp., 197 N.W.2d 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “There were two divisions of the defendant corporation that conducted business activity in the Detroit area: (1) Birds Eye Division and (2) H & R Coffee Service branch of the Institutional Food Service, Division of General Foods.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “, because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.605, it was not doing business in Detroit; in other words, Apex lacked the constitutional “nexus” with Detroit to be subject to taxation.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “, because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.605, it was not doing business in Detroit; in other words, Apex lacked the constitutional “nexus” with Detroit to be subject to taxation.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“, because, although Apex was “doing business” under MCL 141.605, it was not doing business in Detroit; in other words, Apex lacked the constitutional “nexus” with Detroit to be subject to taxation.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.605(a) — 1 case
Detroit v. Gen. Foods Corp., 197 N.W.2d 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“There were two divisions of the defendant corporation that conducted business activity in the Detroit area: (1) Birds Eye Division and (2) H & R Coffee Service branch of the Institutional Food Service, Division of General Foods.”
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.