|
No. 133394, 133396, 133400, 133401, 133402, 133403, 133404, 133405, 133406
| Daimlerchrysler Corporation, |
|
Carl Rashid, Jr. |
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
Michael F. Smith |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Warren, M.) |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and Department of |
|
Ross H. Bishop |
| Environmental Quality, |
|
John Fordell Leone |
Respondents-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| City of Auburn Hills, |
|
Derk W. Beckerleg |
Respondent-Appellant. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
Jeffrey A. Hyman |
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
Stewart L. Mandell |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Callahan, M.) |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| City of Dearborn, |
|
William H. Irving |
Intervening Respondent-Appellant. |
|
Debra A. Walling |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| City of Dearborn, |
|
|
Intervening Respondent-Appellee. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Detroit Diesel Corporation, |
|
Carl Rashid, Jr. |
Petitioner-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, |
|
Michael F. Smith |
| v |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Charter Township of Redford, |
|
|
Intervening Respondent-Appellee, Cross-Appellee. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellants. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Daimlerchrysler Corporation, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
| State Tax Commision and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Township of Sylvan, |
|
|
Respondent-Appellee, |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Daimlerchrysler Corporation, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
| State Tax Commission and D E Q, |
|
|
Respondents-Appellants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| City of Auburn Hills, |
|
|
| Respondent-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
133394 - Petitioner-Appellee Daimlerchrysler Corporation and Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant Detroit Diesel Corporation's (133403) Joint Brief on Appeal>>
133394 - Respondent-Appellant City of Auburn Hills' Brief on Appeal>>
133394, 133396, 133400-02 - Petitioner-Appellee Ford Motor Company's Brief on Appeal>>
133396 - Intervening Respondent-Appellant City of Dearborn's Brief on Appeal>>
133400-06 - Respondents-Appellants State Tax Commission and Department of Environmental Quality's Brief on Appeal>>
133400-06 - Respondents-Appellants State Tax Commission and Department of Environmental Quality's Reply Brief to Ford Motor Company>>
133400-06 -
Respondents-Appellants State Tax Commission and Department of Environmental Quality's Reply Brief to Daimlerchrysler Corporation and Detroit Diesel Corporation's Joint Brief>>
133403 - Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant Detroit Diesel Corporation's Brief on Cross Appeal>>
133403 - Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant Detroit Diesel Corporation's Reply Brief>>
133403 - Respondents-Appellants-Cross-Appellees State Tax Commission and Department of Environmental Quality's Brief on Appeal>>
133406 - Respondent-Appellee City of Auburn HIlls' Brief on Appeal>>
Background
These consolidated cases involve three applications for state tax exemption certificates under Michigan’s air pollution control laws. Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and Detroit Diesel Corporation installed “test cell” facilities, which are designed to sample vehicles’ and engines’ exhaust emissions during design and manufacture. Ford, DaimlerChryslyer, and Detroit Diesel applied for tax exemption certificates from the State Tax Commission under Part 59 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.5901 et seq., which permits certain property, sales and use tax exemptions for facilities that reduce air pollution. Detroit Diesel also sought a tax exemption for its new engine manufacturing facility. As required by Part 59, the State Tax Commission referred the request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which concluded that none of the facilities qualifies for exemption under Part 59. The primary purpose of the test cell facilities is to enable the taxpayers to sell their vehicles by complying with federal law, not to reduce pollution, MDEQ found. In addition, to qualify for the exemption, a facility must physically remove or control pollution, whereas the test cells actually generate some pollution during testing, MDEQ said. The State Tax Commission agreed, denying all exemption requests. In several separate actions, the companies appealed to various circuit courts. Ford’s four exemption denials were reversed; the denials for DaimlerChrysler and Detroit Diesel were affirmed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals consolidated all appeals from the lower court rulings and held in a published decision that tax exemption certificates must be issued for all the test cell facilities. The test cells’ primary purpose is to reduce pollution, and the facilities need not physically or directly reduce pollution in order to qualify for the statutory tax exemption, the appellate court said. But MDEQ properly denied Detroit Diesel’s exemption request for its engine plant, because that facility’s primary purpose was not to reduce pollution, but to manufacture engines for sale, the Court of Appeals stated. MDEQ and the State Tax Commission jointly appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision; Detroit Diesel has cross-appealed. The cities of Dearborn and Auburn Hills have also appealed to protect their interests as the affected taxing authorities.
Top of Page
|
