Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.59 (2026)

Administration of tax; conflicting provisions; rules.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GENERAL SALES TAX ACT

Act 167 of 1933

205.59 Administration of tax; conflicting provisions; rules.

Sec. 9.

(1) The tax imposed by this act shall be administered by the department pursuant to 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, the streamlined sales and use tax administration act, and this act. If the provisions of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, the streamlined sales and use tax administration act, and this act conflict, the provisions of this act apply.

(2) The department shall promulgate rules to implement this act pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

History: 1933, Act 167, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 313, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 205.59 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 272, Eff. July 1, 1949 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 38, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 83, Imd. Eff. Aug. 4, 1971 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 10, Imd. Eff. Mar. 25, 1975 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 164, Eff. Sept. 17, 1980 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 375, Eff. Mar. 22, 1989 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 87, Imd. Eff. July 18, 1991 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 365, Imd. Eff. Oct. 20, 1998 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 173, Eff. Sept. 1, 2004

AdminRule Notes:

R 205.1 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1950–2017 · leading case: Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 495 Mich. 104 (Mich. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 495 Mich. 104 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “MCL 205.59(1). 16 MCL 205.28(l)(a) (emphasis added).”

Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “1854(4), "An action of any kind shall not be instituted * * * unless * * * commenced within 90 days"; MCL 205.59(6); MSA 7.530(6), "The taxpayer shall not claim refund * * * after the expiration of 4 years"; MCL 211.”

United States v. State of Michigan, 851 F.2d 803 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “The state maintains that the four-year limitation period provided in section 9 of the state’s General Sales Tax Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 205.59, should apply. This provision prevents a “taxpayer” from claiming a “refund of any amount paid to the [state] after the expiration of 4…”

SMK, LLC v. Dep't of Treasury, 826 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “When imposing taxes under that act, respondent is required by MCL 205.59(1) to follow the provisions of the revenue collection act, MCL 205.”

Dep't of Treasury v. Campbell, 309 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “The statute provides in part: "The tax herein imposed in addition to the interest and penalties provided in sections [MCL 205.59] and [MCL 205.61] hereof, and costs that may accrue in addition hereto, shall be a lien in favor of the state against all property and rights of…”

United States v. State of Mich., 635 F. Supp. 944 (W.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “The tax must thus be held unconstitutional as applied to the federal credit unions.”

Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 826 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “When imposing taxes under that act, respondent is required by MCL 205.59(1) to follow the provisions of the revenue collection act, MCL 205.”

Detroit Hilton Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury, 373 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals reliance on MCL 205.59(2); MSA 7.530(2) was misplaced.”

United States v. Michigan, 635 F. Supp. 944 (W.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “The tax must thus be held unconstitutional as applied to the federal credit unions.”

Galperin v. Dep't of Revenue, 42 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. 1950). “CL 1948, § 205.59 (Stat Aim 1947 Cum Supp § 7.530).”

Detroit Hilton Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury, 337 N.W.2d 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “"The department is authorized to make assessment for taxes due, upon the information in its possession, MCL 205.59, 205.100; MSA 7.530, 7.555(10).”

Smk LLC v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “Service upon the department may be made in the same manner.[16] MCL 205.8 establishes the department’s notice obligations to the taxpayer’s designated representative: If a taxpayer files with the department a written request that copies of letters and notices regarding a dispute…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.59(1) — 5 cases

Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 495 Mich. 104 (Mich. 2014). “MCL 205.59(1). 16 MCL 205.28(l)(a) (emphasis added).”

SMK, LLC v. Dep't of Treasury, 826 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “When imposing taxes under that act, respondent is required by MCL 205.59(1) to follow the provisions of the revenue collection act, MCL 205.”

Fradco, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 826 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “When imposing taxes under that act, respondent is required by MCL 205.59(1) to follow the provisions of the revenue collection act, MCL 205.”

Smk LLC v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2014). “Service upon the department may be made in the same manner.[16] MCL 205.8 establishes the department’s notice obligations to the taxpayer’s designated representative: If a taxpayer files with the department a written request that copies of letters and notices regarding a dispute…”

K & W Wholesale LLC v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.59(2) — 2 cases

Detroit Hilton Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury, 373 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. 1985). “The Court of Appeals reliance on MCL 205.59(2); MSA 7.530(2) was misplaced.”

Detroit Hilton Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury, 337 N.W.2d 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “"The department is authorized to make assessment for taxes due, upon the information in its possession, MCL 205.59, 205.100; MSA 7.530, 7.555(10).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.59(6) — 1 case

Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). “1854(4), "An action of any kind shall not be instituted * * * unless * * * commenced within 90 days"; MCL 205.59(6); MSA 7.530(6), "The taxpayer shall not claim refund * * * after the expiration of 4 years"; MCL 211.”

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.