Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.654 (2026)

Tax withheld; exemptions claimed; percentage of work done at predominant place of employment; qualified taxpayer within renaissance zone.

✓ 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

141.654 Tax withheld; exemptions claimed; percentage of work done at predominant place of employment; qualified taxpayer within renaissance zone.

Sec. 54.

An employee with compensation subject to tax shall file with his or her employer a form on which the employee states the number of exemptions claimed, the city of residence, the predominant place of employment, whether or not the employee claims status as a qualified taxpayer of a renaissance zone, and the percentage of work done or services performed in the predominant place of employment. The percentage shall be expressed as "less than 25%", "40%", "60%", "80%", or "100%". The employer shall retain the form, rely on the information on the form for withholding purposes unless directed by the city to withhold on another basis, and, if the employee claims status as a qualified taxpayer based on residency in a renaissance zone, the employer shall forward a copy of the form to the city. If information submitted by the employee is not believed to be true, correct, and complete, the city shall be advised. As used in this section, "renaissance zone" means that term as defined in section 35.

History: 1964, Act 284, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1964 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 442, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1996

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2022 · leading case: Phillip Hofmeister v. City of Jackson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Phillip Hofmeister v. City of Jackson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Although the crux of defendant’s dispositive motion raised a challenge to jurisdiction, defendant also noted that plaintiff took issue with Consumers’ income tax withholding process which was governed by CITA and the statutory requirement pertaining to exemptions in light of the…”

Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2020). “651(b); MCL 141.654; MCL 141.657(2)(b). 31 result, we are not persuaded by the Court of Appeals that the use of distinctive terms within the UCITO necessarily communicates, as that Court believed, a legislative intention thereby to communicate distinctive meanings to the…”

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.