Summary
In Betten Auto Center v. Dep't of Treasury, 478 Mich. 864 (2007), the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed a portion of a Court of Appeals decision where cars sold by a new car dealer are exempt from liability for any interim use to which the dealer puts them, pending resale, under the resale exemption.
Summary of this case from General Motors Corp. v. Department of TreasuryOpinion
Nos. 132343-132345, 132347-132349.
May 25, 2007.
Reported below: 272 Mich App 14.
Summary Disposition.
On May 10, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the applications for leave to appeal the August 1, 2006, judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the applications are again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm only that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the vehicles in question are exempt from the imposition of a use tax under the resale exemption contained in MCL 205.94(1)(c). The MCL 205.94(1)(c) "purchased for resale" exemption precludes use tax under MCL 205.93(1). We vacate the balance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and adopt the trial court's August 2, 2005, opinion and order holding that MCL 205.94(1)(c) applies and that no use tax is due. The "exemption for demonstration purposes" exemption of MCL 205.94(1)(c) and the "purchased for resale" exemption of MCL 205.94(1)(c) are independent of one another; both provide exemptions from use tax upon satisfaction of applicable statutory criteria. The Court of Appeals also erred in applying the Black's Law Dictionary definition of "consumer," rather than the statutory definition of "consumer" set forth in MCL 205.92(g). "We need not, indeed we must not, search afield for meanings where the act supplies its own." W S Butterfield Theatres, Inc v Dep't of Revenue, 353 Mich 345, 350 (1958).
I concur in the result.
KELLY, J. I would grant leave to appeal.