154668-70 - Ally Financial v State Treasurer
Attorney Information
|
Ally Financial, Inc,
|
|
Joseph J. Shannon
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Ct of Claims – Talbot, M.)
|
|
|
State Treasurer, State of
Michigan, and Department of Treasury,
|
|
Jessica A. McGivney
Emily Zillgitt
|
|
|
Defendants-Appellees.
|
|
|
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santander Consumer USA,
Inc.,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Treasurer, State of
Michigan, and Department of Treasury,
|
Defendants-Appellees.
|
|
|
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santander Consumer USA,
Inc.,
|
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Treasurer, State of
Michigan, and Department of Treasury,
|
Defendants-Appellees.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Plaintiffs
are lenders who provided financing for the purchase of motor vehicles from
various dealerships. When a purchaser defaulted and the contract had an unpaid
balance after repossession and resale, plaintiffs sought under MCL 205.54i of
the General Sales Tax Act a refund of the sales tax paid on the installment
sales that resulted in bad debts. The Michigan Department of Treasury rejected
the claimed refunds on the grounds that the repossessed property is excluded
under the act, that plaintiffs failed to submit the proper documentation, and
that plaintiff Ally Financial’s election forms were insufficient to determine
whether Ally or the dealerships were entitled to the refunds. Plaintiffs filed
suit in the Court of Claims, which granted summary disposition to the
Department on several grounds: (1) accounts in which the property was
repossessed are not “bad debts” under MCL 205.54i, regardless whether a balance
remained after the repossessed property was sold; (2) the Department could
require plaintiffs to submit RD-108 forms to support their claims; and (3)
plaintiff Ally’s election forms only covered “currently existing” and future
accounts, and accounts that had already been written off for tax purposes were
not “currently existing.” The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion,
agreeing with the Department on all issues. The Supreme Court has directed oral
argument on plaintiffs’ applications for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether
MCL 205.54i prohibits partial or full tax refunds on bad debt accounts that
include repossessed property; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving
the Department’s interpretation of MCL 205.54i respectful consideration in
light of MCL 24.232(5); (3) how the Supreme Court should review the
Department’s decision to require RD-108 forms pursuant to MCL 205.54i(4) and,
under that standard, whether the decision was appropriate; and (4) whether the
Court of Appeals erred in holding that Ally Financial’s election forms did not
apply to accounts written off prior to the retailers’ execution of the forms.