Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 208 / Act 36 of 2007
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1301 (2026)

Tax base; apportionment; allocation; taxpayer subject to tax in another state; circumstances.

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

MICHIGAN BUSINESS TAX ACT


Act 36 of 2007


208.1301 Tax base; apportionment; allocation; taxpayer subject to tax in another state; circumstances.

Sec. 301.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, each tax base established under this act shall be apportioned in accordance with this chapter.

    (2) Each tax base of a taxpayer whose business activities are confined solely to this state shall be allocated to this state. Each tax base of a taxpayer whose business activities are subject to tax both within and outside of this state shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying each tax base by the sales factor calculated under section 303.

    (3) A taxpayer whose business activities are subject to tax both within and outside of this state is subject to tax in another state in either of the following circumstances:

    (a) The taxpayer is subject to a business privilege tax, a net income tax, a franchise tax measured by net income, a franchise tax for the privilege of doing business, or a corporate stock tax or a tax of the type imposed under this act in that state.

    (b) That state has jurisdiction to subject the taxpayer to 1 or more of the taxes listed in subdivision (a) regardless of whether that state does or does not subject the taxpayer to that tax.

History: 2007, Act 36, Eff. Jan. 1, 2008

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 36 of 2007 provides:

    "Enacting section 1. This act takes effect January 1, 2008 and applies to all business activity occurring after December 31, 2007."

PopularName Notes:

MBT
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 14× “; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(1) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterally altered or amended by a member state; and (4)…”
Watts Regulator Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 314 Mich. App. 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “As the Court of Claims explained: [2014] PA 282 thus amended the MBT to express the “original intent” of the Legislature with regard to (1) the repeal of the Compact provisions, (2) application of the MBT’s apportionment provision under MCL 208.1301, and (3) the intended effect…”
Gillette Com. Operations North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 312 Mich. App. 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(l) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterally *403 altered or amended by a member state; and (4)…”
Gillette Com. Operations North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 880 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “Effective January 1,2008, the Legislature enacted the Michigan Business Tax Act (BTA), MCL 208.”
Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “589, is to express the original intent of the legislature regarding the application of section 301 of the Michigan business tax act, 2007 PA 36 , MCL 208.1301, and the intended effect of that section to eliminate the election provision included within section 1 of 1969 PA 343 ,…”
Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “40 part: [HN7] (1) Any taxpayer subject to an 40 MCL 208.1301. income tax whose income is subject to apportionment and allocation for tax We recognize that [HN10] the language of the BTA purposes pursuant to the laws of a party is mandatory in nature.”
Solo Cup Operating Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY For the tax years at issue in both appeals, plaintiff timely filed its MBT returns electing to use a three-factor apportionment formula to calculate its tax base under Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact), as incorporated into…”
Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “589, is to express the original intent of the legislature regarding the application of section 301 of the Michigan business tax act, 2007 PA 36 , MCL 208.1301, and the intended effect 6 The Legislature explicitly repealed the Compact apportionment provisions effective January 1,…”
EMC Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “589, is to express the original intent of the legislature regarding the application of section 301 of the Michigan business tax act, 2007 PA 36 , MCL 208.1301, and the intended effect 6 The Legislature explicitly repealed the Compact apportionment provisions effective January 1,…”
EMC Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “41; MCL 208.1301. 25 Malpass, 494 Mich. at 245–246, 833 N.”
Yaskawa Am. Inc v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
advance/newhouse P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1301(1) — 9 cases
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014). “; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(1) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterally altered or amended by a member state; and (4)…”
Gillette Com. Operations North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 880 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 2016). “Effective January 1,2008, the Legislature enacted the Michigan Business Tax Act (BTA), MCL 208.”
Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015). “40 part: [HN7] (1) Any taxpayer subject to an 40 MCL 208.1301. income tax whose income is subject to apportionment and allocation for tax We recognize that [HN10] the language of the BTA purposes pursuant to the laws of a party is mandatory in nature.”
Yaskawa Am. Inc v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
advance/newhouse P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1301(2) — 13 cases
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014). “; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(1) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterally altered or amended by a member state; and (4)…”
Gillette Com. Operations North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 312 Mich. App. 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “; (2) whether § 301 of the Michigan Business Tax Act, MCL 208.1301, repealed by implication Article III(l) of the Multistate Tax Compact; (3) whether the Multistate Tax Compact constitutes a contract that cannot be unilaterally *403 altered or amended by a member state; and (4)…”
Gillette Com. Operations North Am. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Treasury, 880 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 2016). “Effective January 1,2008, the Legislature enacted the Michigan Business Tax Act (BTA), MCL 208.”
Yaskawa Am. Inc v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
advance/newhouse P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2016). “” MCL 208.1301(1). Finally, MCL 208.1301(2) of the BTA provided for an apportionment formula based solely on a sales factor.”
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.