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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.6 (2026)

“Commercial domicile,” “compensation,” and “corporation” defined.

✓ 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


206.6 “Commercial domicile,” “compensation,” and “corporation” defined.

Sec. 6.

    (1) "Commercial domicile" means the principal place from which the trade or business of the taxpayer is directed or managed.

    (2) "Compensation" means wages as defined in section 3401 and other payments as provided in section 3402 of the internal revenue code.

    (3) "Corporation" means, in addition to an incorporated entity, an association, trust or any unincorporated organization which is defined as a corporation in the internal revenue code.

History: 1967, Act 281, Eff. Oct. 1, 1967 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 332, Imd. Eff. Nov. 4, 1969 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Apr. 28, 1971 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 38, Eff. Jan. 1, 2012

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Michigan Consol. Gas Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 250 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michigan Consol. Gas Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 250 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “2 1969 PA 332 , § 6 (MCLA 206.6; MSA 7.557(106)). 1970 PA 140 , § 12 (MCLA 206.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” MCL 206.6(1). We agree with the Tribunal that the application of this concept, which does not appear in the city income tax act, is unnecessary to the determination of whether Apex was “doing business in the city” of Detroit; the plain language of MCL 141.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” MCL 206.6(1). We agree with the Tribunal that the application of this concept, which does not appear in the city income tax act, is unnecessary to the determination of whether Apex was “doing business in the city” of Detroit; the plain language of MCL 141.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 206.6(1) — 2 cases
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” MCL 206.6(1). We agree with the Tribunal that the application of this concept, which does not appear in the city income tax act, is unnecessary to the determination of whether Apex was “doing business in the city” of Detroit; the plain language of MCL 141.”
Apex Labs. Int'l Inc v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” MCL 206.6(1). We agree with the Tribunal that the application of this concept, which does not appear in the city income tax act, is unnecessary to the determination of whether Apex was “doing business in the city” of Detroit; the plain language of MCL 141.”
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.