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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.620 (2026)

Partial business activity in city; business allocation percentage method.

✓ 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


141.620 Partial business activity in city; business allocation percentage method.

Sec. 20.

    The business allocation percentage method shall be used if such taxpayer is not granted approval to use the separate accounting method of allocation. The entire net profits of such taxpayer earned as a result of work done, services rendered or other business activity conducted in the city shall be ascertained by determining the total "in-city" percentages of property, payroll and sales. "In-city" percentages of property, payrolls and sales, separately computed, shall be determined in accordance with sections 21 to 24.

History: 1964, Act 284, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1964 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 42, Imd. Eff. July 17, 1969

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Borman's, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 191 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Borman's, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 191 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 2× “The director of the Income Tax Division for Detroit disallowed Borman’s use of separate accounting and required it to use a “three factor” apportionment formula as provided in MCLA § 141.620 (Stat Ann 1969 Rev § 5.3194[30] ).”
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020). · cites it 7× “618, apportions its net profit using a three-factor formula known as the “business allocation percentage method,” MCL 141.620. This formula incorporates a “property factor,” the numerator of which includes the value of tangible personal and real property “situated within the…”
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit, 915 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 141.620 through MCL 141.624. MCL 141.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “’ ” Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, LLP v Detroit, 505 Mich 284 , 296; 952 NW2d 358 (2020). MCL 141.620 introduces the three-factor formula: The business allocation percentage method shall be used if such taxpayer is not granted approval to use the separate accounting method of…”
Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “3 MCL 141.620 through MCL 141.624. 4 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.