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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1309 (2026)

Apportionment; petition; alternate method; rebuttable presumption that apportionment provisions fairly represent business activity; return or amended return not considered as petition.

✓ 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


208.1309 Apportionment; petition; alternate method; rebuttable presumption that apportionment provisions fairly represent business activity; return or amended return not considered as petition.

Sec. 309.

    (1) If the apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer's business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the treasurer may require the following, with respect to all or a portion of the taxpayer's business activity, if reasonable:

    (a) Separate accounting.

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

    (c) The use of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer's tax base.

    (2) An alternate method may be used only if it is approved by the department.

    (3) The apportionment provisions of this act shall be rebuttably presumed to fairly represent the business activity attributed to the taxpayer in this state, taken as a whole and without a separate examination of the specific elements of either tax base unless it can be demonstrated that the business activity attributed to the taxpayer in this state is out of all appropriate proportion to the actual business activity transacted in this state and leads to a grossly distorted result or would operate unconstitutionally to tax the extraterritorial activity of the taxpayer.

    (4) The filing of a return or an amended return is not considered a petition for the purposes of subsection (1).

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 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · 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 8× “STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a Court of Claims decision on a motion for summary disposition.8 We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation.”
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2023). · cites it 15× “The dispute in this case concerns whether the MBTA’s statutory tax liability formula controlled or whether the taxpayer has shown by clear and cogent evidence that an alternative apportionment formula, as allowed by MCL 208.1309, should have been used. Vectren asserts that the…”
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “That provision governs the procedural and substantive requirements for seeking alternate apportionment and provides: (1) If the apportionment provisions of this act do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition…”
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× “He determined that the panel did not need to conclude that the BTA had impliedly repealed the Compact because MCL 208.1309 allowed the taxpayer to petition for another apportionment formula.”
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 3× “He MICHIGAN determined that the panel did not need to conclude that the BTA had impliedly repealed the Compact Because we believe it important to our analysis in because MCL 208.1309 allowed the taxpayer to this case, we begin with a discussion of the history of petition for…”
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2020). “This foundational issue must be addressed before determining that MCL 208.1309 requires application of an alternative method of apportionment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1309(1) — 4 cases
Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014). “STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a Court of Claims decision on a motion for summary disposition.8 We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation.”
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2023). “The dispute in this case concerns whether the MBTA’s statutory tax liability formula controlled or whether the taxpayer has shown by clear and cogent evidence that an alternative apportionment formula, as allowed by MCL 208.1309, should have been used. Vectren asserts that the…”
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). “He determined that the panel did not need to conclude that the BTA had impliedly repealed the Compact because MCL 208.1309 allowed the taxpayer to petition for another apportionment formula.”
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). “He MICHIGAN determined that the panel did not need to conclude that the BTA had impliedly repealed the Compact Because we believe it important to our analysis in because MCL 208.1309 allowed the taxpayer to this case, we begin with a discussion of the history of petition for…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1309(2) — 1 case
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2023). “The dispute in this case concerns whether the MBTA’s statutory tax liability formula controlled or whether the taxpayer has shown by clear and cogent evidence that an alternative apportionment formula, as allowed by MCL 208.1309, should have been used. Vectren asserts that the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 208.1309(3) — 1 case
Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. 2023). “The dispute in this case concerns whether the MBTA’s statutory tax liability formula controlled or whether the taxpayer has shown by clear and cogent evidence that an alternative apportionment formula, as allowed by MCL 208.1309, should have been used. Vectren asserts that 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.