Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.195 (2026)

Alternative methods of allocation and apportionment; approval.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

INCOME TAX ACT OF 1967

Act 281 of 1967

206.195 Alternative methods of allocation and apportionment; approval.

Sec. 195.

(1) If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this part do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer's business activity, if reasonable:

(a) Separate accounting;

(b) The inclusion of 1 or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity in this state.

(c) The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's taxable income.

(2) An alternative method will be effective only with approval by the department.

History: 1967, Act 281, Eff. Oct. 1, 1967 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 38, Eff. Jan. 1, 2012

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1976–2013 · leading case: Donovan Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 337 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Donovan Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 337 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “" MCL 206.195; MSA 7.557(1195). Michigan joined the Multistate Tax Compact, MCL 205.”

Tad Malpass v. Dep't of Treasury, 833 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “We do not address whether, or the extent to which, the Department may promulgate a rule requiring that an individual taxpayer use a particular method of reporting in the taxpayer’s initial filing.”

Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 248 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals from an interlocutory order of August 27, 1974, requiring immediate publication of income tax records compiled under MCLA 206.195; MSA 7.557(1195) and MCLA 206.”

Holloway Sand & Gravel Co. Inc. v. Dept. of Treasury, 393 N.W.2d 921 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Petitioner claims that the statutory formula method used by it fairly represented its business activities in Texas and Michigan and that treasury erred in forcing upon it a separate accounting method as allowed under § 195 of 1967 PA 281 .”

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 377 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Section 69 is, for pertinent purposes, identical to the relief provision of the Income Tax Act of 1967, alternatively referred to as the Michigan corporate income tax, see MCL 206.”

Malpass v. Dep't of Treasury, 295 Mich. App. 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “115 to MCL 206.195], Starting with the premise that all compensation received by a Michigan resident is allocated to Michigan, which conforms with MCL 206.”

Payne & Dolan of Wisconsin, Inc v. Dep't of Treasury, 360 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “1 An exception to use of the apportionment formula is provided in MCL 206.195; MSA 7.557(1195), which states in pertinent part as follows: "If the allocation and apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this…”

Detroit Bank & Trust Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 377 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Further, § 195 of the act stated that if the allocation and apportionment provisions did not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the commissioner could approve an alternative method or require the use of different factors than those…”

Est. of Thomas M Wheeler v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “We note, however, that any such rule would be subject to the current MCL 206.195, which gives the taxpayer the 12 Department has interpreted the statute to prohibit combined reporting, that interpretation is inconsistent with the broad scope of section 115; therefore, it…”

Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 335 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “” MCL 206.195; MSA 7.557(195). The Board of Tax Appeals recently held, without reference to its decision in this case or § 201, that the department may, "pursuant to its broad discretionary power to require combined reporting by a domestic domiciliary corporation”, include…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.195(1)(c) — 2 cases

Tad Malpass v. Dep't of Treasury, 833 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2013). “We do not address whether, or the extent to which, the Department may promulgate a rule requiring that an individual taxpayer use a particular method of reporting in the taxpayer’s initial filing.”

Est. of Thomas M Wheeler v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2013). “We note, however, that any such rule would be subject to the current MCL 206.195, which gives the taxpayer the 12 Department has interpreted the statute to prohibit combined reporting, that interpretation is inconsistent with the broad scope of section 115; therefore, it…”

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.