STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT
Act 240 of 1943
38.40 Allowances, benefits, and other rights; exemption from taxation; subject to tax beginning January 1, 2012; subject to public employee retirement benefit protection act.
Sec. 40.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of a person to a pension, an annuity, a retirement allowance, and any optional benefit and any other right accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this act, the various funds created by this act, and all money and investments and income of the funds are exempt from any state, county, municipal, or other local tax.
(2) Beginning January 1, 2012, the right of a person to a pension, an annuity, a retirement allowance, and any optional benefit, and any other right accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this act, is subject to state tax upon distribution to the person from the various funds created by this act.
(3) The right of a person to a pension, an annuity, a retirement allowance, any optional benefit, any other right accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this act, the various funds created by this act, and all money and investments and income of the funds is subject to the public employee retirement benefit protection act, 2002 PA 100, MCL 38.1681 to 38.1689.
History: 1943, Act 240, Eff. July 30, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 38.40 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 35, Imd. Eff. June 13, 1985 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 48, Imd. Eff. June 27, 1991 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 99, Imd. Eff. Mar. 27, 2002 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 41, Imd. Eff. May 25, 2011
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1968–2015 · leading case:
Stone v. State, 638 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Stone v. State, 638 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 78× “MCL 38.40(1) is clearly a tax-exemption provision within the SERA.”
Stone v. State, 651 N.W.2d 64 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs, representing a class of former employees who retired under the early retirement program, sued the state and the Department of Treasury in the Court of Claims arguing that taxes could not be withheld from these payments because such withholding was prohibited by MCL…”
United States v. Ali H. Sawaf & Elena v. Sawaf, 74 F.3d 119 (6th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§§ 231 (m) or 352(e) were inapplicable, as they address railroad employees’ benefits; 2) The exemptions under Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 38.40 were inapplicable, as they pertain to Michigan state employee benefits.”
In re Hamacher, 535 B.R. 180 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “58 being held in a Huntington Bank account (“the Funds”) and claimed an exemption pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.40 , a provision of the State Employees’ Retirement Act that provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right of a person to a pension, an…”
In Re Benton, 237 B.R. 353 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999).
· cites it 3× “that advanced by Benton and the WCERS here: Defendants also raise a cursory argument that, because the Plan was established pursuant to the City Charter; because the Charter has always provided for a restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest in the Plan; and because…”
Taunt v. Gen. Ret. Sys. (In Re Wilcox), 225 B.R. 151 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Defendants also raise a cursory argument that, because the Plan was established pursuant to the City Charter: because the Charter has always provided for a restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest in the Plan; and because the state statute governing the retirement…”
Marion v. Vaughn, 163 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “[18] The exemption clause in the State Employees' Retirement System Act, CL 1948, § 38.40 (Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 3.981[40]), reads much like the exemption clause in the act before us except that instead of speaking of "any other benefits" (see footnote 1) it uses the words "any…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.40(1) — 5 cases
Stone v. State, 638 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“MCL 38.40(1) is clearly a tax-exemption provision within the SERA.”
Stone v. State, 651 N.W.2d 64 (Mich. 2002).
“Plaintiffs, representing a class of former employees who retired under the early retirement program, sued the state and the Department of Treasury in the Court of Claims arguing that taxes could not be withheld from these payments because such withholding was prohibited by MCL…”
In Re Benton, 237 B.R. 353 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999).
“that advanced by Benton and the WCERS here: Defendants also raise a cursory argument that, because the Plan was established pursuant to the City Charter; because the Charter has always provided for a restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest in the Plan; and because…”
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.