Search results
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion for the Court reasoned that the Bank was an instrumentality of the Federal Government used to carry into effect the Government's delegated powers, and taxation by the State would unconstitutionally interfere with the exercise of those powers.
Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), is a case in the Supreme Court of the United States holding that states may not tax federal pensions if they exempt their own state pensions from taxation. [1] In the 1930s, the federal and state governments began to charge income tax on salaries paid to each other's employees.
Case Year: 1989. Case Ruling: 8-1, Reversed and Remanded. Opinion Justice: Kennedy. FACTS. Michigan's revenue code provided that retirement benefits paid to individuals by the state or any of its political subdivisions were exempt from state income taxes.
In 1984, Mr. Davis petitioned the State of Michigan for a refund of the state taxes he had paid on his retirement benefits since 1979.12 After his request was denied, he sued the state treasury for a refund in the Michigan Court of Claims arguing that federal retirement benefits were not legally taxable under the Mich 409 8.0.1500(1989).
Michigan and the Doctrine of Retroactivity: States' Refund Liability for Taxation of Federal Pension Income. I. INTRODUCTION. In Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury/ the Supreme Court invalidated a Michigan tax statute which treated state and fed eral employees' pensions differently.
In 1984 Davis petitioned the Michigan Department of Treasury (the treasury department) (defendant) for a refund of the income taxes he paid on his federal retirement benefits. The treasury department denied Davis’s petition.
Supreme Court of the United States. ________________ FR. Petitioner, v. IGAN DEPARTMENT OF T. Respondent. ____________________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. ____________________ BRIEF OF THE INSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONALS IN TAXATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER. _____________________ MARK A. LOYD
