Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 206 / Act 281 of 1967
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.2 (2026)

Income tax act; rules of construction; internal revenue code, applicability.

✓ 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


206.2 Income tax act; rules of construction; internal revenue code, applicability.

Sec. 2.

    (1) For the purposes of this part, the words, terms and phrases set forth in this chapter and their derivations have the meaning given therein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and in the singular number include the plural. "Shall" is always mandatory and "may" is always discretionary.

    (2) Any term used in this part shall have the same meaning as when used in comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes unless a different meaning is clearly required. Any reference in this part to the internal revenue code shall include other provisions of the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes.

    (3) It is the intention of this part that the income subject to tax be the same as taxable income as defined and applicable to the subject taxpayer in the internal revenue code, except as otherwise provided in this act.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Sturrus v. Dep't of Treasury, 809 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sturrus v. Dep't of Treasury, 809 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “MCL 206.2 provides, in relevant part: (2) Any term used in this act shall have the same meaning as when used in comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes unless a different meaning is clearly required.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Dep't of Treasury, 273 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 4× “Section 12(3) read: "`Net profits' means the net gain from the operation of a business, profession or enterprise, after provision for all costs and expenses incurred in the conduct thereof, determined on either a cash or accrual method, on the same basis as provided for in the…”
Inter Coop. Council v. Dep't of Treasury, 668 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “[MCL 206.2(2).] In this case, the tribunal looked to § 216 of the IRC, 26 USC 216, which uses the same terms “cooperative housing corporation” and “tenant-stockholder.”
Cook v. Dep't of Treasury, 583 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “[MCL 206.2(3); MSA 7.557(102)(3).] This statement of intent was useful to another panel of our Court in Preston v Dep’t of Treasury, 190 Mich App 491 ; 476 NW2d 455 (1991), which considered a related question regarding whether Michigan income tax taxpayers should receive a…”
Molter v. Dep't of Treasury, 505 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “[MCL 206.2; MSA 7.557(102).] In light of the clear legislative intent to adopt the federal approach to calculating taxable income, we conclude that the MITA authorizes taxation of income received in one year for services rendered in an earlier year, just as the IRC authorizes…”
Stolper v. Dep't of Treasury, 417 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “MCL 206.2(1); MSA 7.557(102X1). The Stolpers are husband and wife and filed a joint federal income tax return.”
Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 476 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “The Court of Claims held that although the Michigan Income Tax Act did not expressly provide for an nol deduction during the applicable years, such a provision was incorporated into the act by virtue of §2(3), MCL 206.2(3); MSA 7.557(102)(3). We find no error in the court’s…”
Gallagher v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 180 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “" MCLA § 206.2 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 7.”
Radecki v. Dir. of Bureau of Worker's Disability Comp., 526 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “557(112) was amended in 1987 to refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, § 313 should also *24 be read as referring to the amended Internal Revenue Code. This argument must fail.”
Wackerman v. State, 209 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “7 MCLA 206.2(2); MSA 7.557(102X2). 8 MCLA 206.”
Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 815 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Defendant seeks to borrow the definitions of “indirect partner” and “pass-thru partner” from the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and utilize them in interpreting Michigan Law.”
Bruno v. Dep't of Treasury, 403 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Conflicting judicial decisions and rendered § 62 of the Internal Revenue Code, incorporated by reference in the Michigan Income Tax Act, MCLA 206.2; MSA 7.557(102) ambiguous. Yet the weight of recent authority in 1983 favored a determination that plaintiff was engaged in a trade…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.2(1) — 2 cases
Radecki v. Dir. of Bureau of Worker's Disability Comp., 526 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “557(112) was amended in 1987 to refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, § 313 should also *24 be read as referring to the amended Internal Revenue Code. This argument must fail.”
Stolper v. Dep't of Treasury, 417 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 206.2(1); MSA 7.557(102X1). The Stolpers are husband and wife and filed a joint federal income tax return.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.2(2) — 3 cases
Inter Coop. Council v. Dep't of Treasury, 668 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “[MCL 206.2(2).] In this case, the tribunal looked to § 216 of the IRC, 26 USC 216, which uses the same terms “cooperative housing corporation” and “tenant-stockholder.”
Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 815 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” Defendant seeks to borrow the definitions of “indirect partner” and “pass-thru partner” from the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and utilize them in interpreting Michigan Law.”
Wackerman v. State, 209 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “7 MCLA 206.2(2); MSA 7.557(102X2). 8 MCLA 206.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.2(3) — 12 cases
Sturrus v. Dep't of Treasury, 809 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 206.2 provides, in relevant part: (2) Any term used in this act shall have the same meaning as when used in comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes unless a different meaning is clearly required.”
Cook v. Dep't of Treasury, 583 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “[MCL 206.2(3); MSA 7.557(102)(3).] This statement of intent was useful to another panel of our Court in Preston v Dep’t of Treasury, 190 Mich App 491 ; 476 NW2d 455 (1991), which considered a related question regarding whether Michigan income tax taxpayers should receive a…”
Preston v. Dep't of Treasury, 476 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “The Court of Claims held that although the Michigan Income Tax Act did not expressly provide for an nol deduction during the applicable years, such a provision was incorporated into the act by virtue of §2(3), MCL 206.2(3); MSA 7.557(102)(3). We find no error in the court’s…”
Stolper v. Dep't of Treasury, 417 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 206.2(1); MSA 7.557(102X1). The Stolpers are husband and wife and filed a joint federal income tax return.”
Wackerman v. State, 209 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “7 MCLA 206.2(2); MSA 7.557(102X2). 8 MCLA 206.”
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.