INCOME TAX ACT OF 1967
Act 281 of 1967
206.110 Taxable income of individuals, estates, or trusts; definitions; allocation; rents and royalties.
Sec. 110.
(1) For a resident individual, estate, or trust, all taxable income from any source whatsoever, except that attributable to another state under sections 111 to 115 and subject to section 255, is allocated to this state.
(2) For a nonresident individual, estate, or trust, all taxable income is allocated to this state to the extent it is earned, received, or acquired in 1 or more of the following ways:
(a) For the rendition of personal services performed in this state.
(b) As a distributive share of the net profits of a business, profession, enterprise, undertaking, or other activity as the result of work done, services rendered, or other business activities conducted in this state, except as allocated to another state pursuant to sections 111 to 114 and subject to section 256.
(c) For tax years beginning after 1996, as a prize won by the taxpayer under the McCauley-Traxler-Law-Bowman-McNeely lottery act, 1972 PA 239, MCL 432.1 to 432.47.
(d) As winnings that are proceeds of a wagering transaction paid on or after October 1, 2003 by a casino or as a payoff price on a winning ticket that is the result of pari-mutuel wagering at a licensed race meeting if the casino or licensed race meeting is located in this state. As used in this subdivision:
(i) "Casino" means a casino regulated by this state under the Michigan gaming control and revenue act, 1996 IL 1, MCL 432.201 to 432.226, or a building on Native American land or land held in trust by the United States for a federally recognized Indian tribe on which gaming is conducted under the Indian gaming regulatory act, Public Law 100-497, 102 Stat 2467.
(ii) "Pari-mutuel wagering" and "licensed race meeting" mean those terms as used in the horse racing law of 1995, 1995 PA 279, MCL 431.301 to 431.336.
(3) The respective shares of a nonresident estate or trust and its beneficiaries, including, solely for purposes of allocation, resident and nonresident beneficiaries, in the income attributable to this state shall be in proportion to the respective shares of distributable net income of the beneficiaries under the internal revenue code. If the estate or trust has no distributable net income for the tax year, the share of each beneficiary in the income attributable to this state shall be in proportion to his or her share of the estate or trust income for that year, under local law or the terms of the instrument, that is required to be distributed currently and other amounts of the income distributed in the year. Any balance of the income attributable to this state shall be allocated to the estate or trust.
(4) Rents and royalties from real or tangible personal property, capital gains, interest, dividends, or patent or copyright royalties, to the extent that they constitute a nonbusiness income, shall be allocated as provided in sections 111 to 114.
History: 1967, Act 281, Eff. Oct. 1, 1967 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 332, Imd. Eff. Nov. 4, 1969 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 283, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 1990 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 484, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 24, 2003 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 38, Eff. Jan. 1, 2012
Notes of Decisions
Chocola v. Dep't of Treasury, 369 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 3× “[MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110).] Sec. 113. Interest and dividends are allocable to this state if the taxpayer is a resident partnership, estate or trust or individual of this state or has a commercial domicile in this state.”
Malpass v. Dep't of Treasury, 295 Mich. App. 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” Taking MCL 206.110 and MCL 206.115 together, the court stated: “Clearly, based on the plain language set forth in Sections 110 and 115, the Michigan Legislature has adopted the unitary business principle, because it has chosen to require the apportionment of all business…”
Bachman v. Dep't of Treasury, 544 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “[MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110).] Sec. 115. All business income, other than income from transportation services shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the property factor plus the payroll factor plus the sales factor,…”
Alma Piston Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 600 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “(b) As a distributive share of the net profits of a business[ 1 ], profession, enterprise, undertaking, or other activity as the result of work done, services rendered, or other business activities conducted in this state, except as allocated to another state pursuant to the…”
Molter v. Dep't of Treasury, 484 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “2 In an opinion and order entered on January 2, 1990, the Court of Claims granted in part defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that pursuant to § 110 of the Income Tax Act, MCL 206.110(2)(a); MSA 7.557(1110)(2)(a), the deferred compensation that plaintiff…”
Carman v. Dep't of Treasury, 517 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “In that chapter, MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110) indicates how taxable income of residents and nonresidents is allocated: (1) In the case of a resident individual, .”
Chocola v. Dep't of Treasury, 348 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“MCL 206.110(1); MSA 7.557(1110X1). Two of these statutory exceptions are relevant to the instant problem.”
Wilson v. Dep't of Treasury, 333 N.W.2d 3 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“” MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110). "Interest and dividends are allocable to this state if the taxpayer is a resident partnership, estate or trust or individual of this state or has a commercial domicile in this state.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.110(1) — 5 cases
Malpass v. Dep't of Treasury, 295 Mich. App. 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“” Taking MCL 206.110 and MCL 206.115 together, the court stated: “Clearly, based on the plain language set forth in Sections 110 and 115, the Michigan Legislature has adopted the unitary business principle, because it has chosen to require the apportionment of all business…”
Chocola v. Dep't of Treasury, 348 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“MCL 206.110(1); MSA 7.557(1110X1). Two of these statutory exceptions are relevant to the instant problem.”
Carman v. Dep't of Treasury, 517 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“In that chapter, MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110) indicates how taxable income of residents and nonresidents is allocated: (1) In the case of a resident individual, .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.110(2)(a) — 5 cases
Alma Piston Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 600 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“(b) As a distributive share of the net profits of a business[ 1 ], profession, enterprise, undertaking, or other activity as the result of work done, services rendered, or other business activities conducted in this state, except as allocated to another state pursuant to the…”
Molter v. Dep't of Treasury, 484 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“2 In an opinion and order entered on January 2, 1990, the Court of Claims granted in part defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that pursuant to § 110 of the Income Tax Act, MCL 206.110(2)(a); MSA 7.557(1110)(2)(a), the deferred compensation that plaintiff…”
Carman v. Dep't of Treasury, 517 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“In that chapter, MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110) indicates how taxable income of residents and nonresidents is allocated: (1) In the case of a resident individual, .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.110(2)(b) — 3 cases
Bachman v. Dep't of Treasury, 544 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“[MCL 206.110; MSA 7.557(1110).] Sec. 115. All business income, other than income from transportation services shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the property factor plus the payroll factor plus the sales factor,…”
Alma Piston Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 600 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“(b) As a distributive share of the net profits of a business[ 1 ], profession, enterprise, undertaking, or other activity as the result of work done, services rendered, or other business activities conducted in this state, except as allocated to another state pursuant 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.