Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 205 / Act 122 of 1941
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.7 (2026)

Awarding damages; conditions; limitation.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVENUE DIVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY


Act 122 of 1941


205.7 Awarding damages; conditions; limitation.

Sec. 7.

    If the department intentionally or recklessly disregards a provision of a law, rule, or written guideline or procedure of the department in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of a tax, interest, or penalty under this act or a tax administered under this act, a taxpayer may be awarded actual damages, including reasonable attorney fees, sustained as a result of the department's action. An award under this section shall not exceed $10,000.00. A claim may be brought under this section only if the cause of action arose before January 1, 1996.

History: Add. 1993, Act 14, Imd. Eff. Apr. 1, 1993

Compiler's Notes:

    Former MCL 205.7, which pertained to the state board of tax appeals, was repealed by Act 37 of 1976, Eff. Dec. 31, 1977, Act 162 of 1980, Eff. Dec. 31, 1981, and by Act 138 of 1981, Eff. Sept. 30, 1982.

PopularName Notes:

Revenue Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1951–2016 · leading case: Menard, Inc v. City of Escanaba, 891 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Menard, Inc v. City of Escanaba, 891 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “7 provided that “[t]he burden of proof in any appeal from any assessment, decision or order shall rest with the appellant,” hut, importantly, the statute referred to the appellant and the taxing authority as separate entities.”
Sears v. Dep't of Treasury, 226 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff brings this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the Michigan Department of Treasury either to return to plaintiff money seized pursuant to a jeopardy sales tax assessment, or to compel the State Board of Tax Appeals to hold the hearing required by MCLA 205.7; MSA…”
Jackson Cmty. Coll. v. Dep't of Treasury, 621 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “” See former MCL 205.7; MSA 7.657(7), 1970 CL 2057. Accordingly, MCL 205.”
Columbia Assocs., LP v. Dep't of Treasury, 649 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “MCL 205.7. IV. CONCLUSION The relevant affiliation fees paid by plaintiffs constituted royalties for purposes of the sbta.”
Craig v. City of Detroit Police Dep't, 243 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “The Income Tax Act provides that any taxpayer "aggrieved by any determination of tax liability made by the department may appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals * * * or, after payment, * * * may bring an action” in the Ingham Circuit Court.”
Holloway Sand & Gravel Co. Inc. v. Dept. of Treasury, 393 N.W.2d 921 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “MCL 205.7; MSA 7.657(7). 2 Here, petitioner was the appellant.”
Campbell v. Dep't of Treasury, 258 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Appeals of a jeopardy sales tax assessment to defendant board are governed by MCLA 205.7; MSA 7.657(7), which states in part: "Sec.”
Rehberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Melvindale, Ecorse Sch. Dist. No. 11, 48 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1951). “]) provides in section 34 that a prior decision of the referee may be appealed to the appeal board which, “on the basis of evidénce submitted and such additional evidence as it may require, shall affirm, modify, set aside, or reverse such findings of facts and decision of the…”
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 248 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “560(187), with MCLA 205.7; MSA 7.657(7). Although the hearing requirements of the APA postdate the creation of the § 421 hearings, the Legislature has reiterated its view that these hear *539 ings should be informal.”
Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 411 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “122 of the Public Acts of 1941, as amended, being sections 205.7, 205.8, and 205.9 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, are repealed effective September 30, 1982.”
Master Craft Eng'g, Inc v. Dep't of Treasury, 366 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Although MCL 205.7; MSA 7.657(7) required both that a hearing be held within 60 days of the filing of an answer and that the board render a decision within 20 days of the hearing, we find no reversible error.”
Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity v. Dep't of Treasury, 347 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “) MCL 205.7; MSA 7.657(7). We initially note that petitioner may not now contest the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the accuracy of the deficiency assessment.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.