PIC Maintenance, Inc. v. Department of Treasury
293 Mich. App. 403
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- UIA determined petitioner employed workers as employees, not independent contractors, with an appeal pending in a different forum.
- Respondent issued three final withholding tax assessments for 2004–2006 on April 28, 2008.
- Petitioner filed a Tax Tribunal petition on July 27, 2009 seeking relief and a stay of collection.
- Tax Tribunal granted summary disposition, dismissed the petition as untimely, and relied on the certified-mail log for notice.
- Petitioner challenged timeliness, notice, and equitable relief, leading to this appeal.
- Court affirms, holding assessments were final and not reviewable due to untimely appeal; injunctive relief barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Petition timely because notice not received timely. | Petition untimely; 35 days from April 28, 2008. | Untimely; 35-day period expired June 2, 2008 |
| Notice sufficiency | Receipt of notice not proven; due process issue. | Notice via certified mail to last known address complied with MCL 205.28(1)(a). | Notice deemed effective; receipt not required for validity |
| Equitable relief / delayed appeal | Curis Big Boy allows equity-based delayed appeal in extraordinary cases. | Tax Tribunal lacks authority to grant delayed appeals; no extraordinary case here. | Equity relief denied; no authority to grant delayed appeal |
| Injunctive relief against collection | Possibly stay collection pending appeal despite statutory bar. | Injunction prohibited by MCL 205.28(1)(b). | Statutorily barred; no injunctive relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Toaz v Dep’t of Treasury, 280 Mich App 457 (2008) (standard for review of Tax Tribunal decisions; de novo statutory interpretation)
- Tomkins v Dep’t of Treasury, 481 Mich 184 (2008) (35-day appeal period; statutory interpretation of 205.22)
- Curis Big Boy, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 206 Mich App 139 (1994) (equity-based delayed appeal not supported; authority limitations)
- Bickler v Dep’t of Treasury, 180 Mich App 205 (1989) (delivery requirements under 205.28(1)(a))
- Wikman v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617 (1982) (notice and due process considerations)
- Detroit Plaza Ltd Partnership, 273 Mich App 260 (2006) (statutory interpretation of tax-related notices)