TITLE

Michigan Issues Guidance on Retroactive Implications of Kmart Decision--Are You Prepared?

AUTHOR(S)
Cummings, Rocky B.
PUB. DATE
March 2010
SOURCE
Journal of State Taxation;Mar/Apr2010, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p11
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on the impact of the court decision on the case involving Kmart Michigan Property Services LLC (KMPS) on the Single Business Tax (SBT) in Michigan. The author explains that the case concerns the proper SBT treatment of entities that are disregarded for federal income tax purposes. He explains that the ruling on Kmart indicates that an SBT taxpayer who included disregarded entities in any of iys SBT returns since 1997 is required to have additional filing responsibilities.
ACCESSION #
53907077

 

Related Articles

  • Court of Appeals says 'no' to B&O. Herreras, Mari // Wenatchee Business Journal;Dec2005, Vol. 19 Issue 12, pA1 

    The article cites that the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III affirmed a state court ruling from 2004 that determined a Spokane resident was wrongly assessed a surcharge by an automotive dealership. The surcharge was added to the plaintiff's car purchase to pay the company's...

  • VAT experts await landmark decision.  // Accountancy;Oct2005, Vol. 136 Issue 1346, p131 

    Reports on the imminent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Halifax v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise as of October 2005, which could threaten businesses' long-established rights to reduce the burden of VAT. Concern that the ECJ would rule that the doctrine of abuse of...

  • CASUAL PROFIT.  // Accountancy;Feb1967, Vol. 78 Issue 882, p128 

    The article reports on the court's decision on the case of Scott v. Ricketts concerning casual profit. It provides information about the details of the case and the basis of the court's decision. The taxpayer was assessed to tax on the 39 thousand pounds under Case VI of Schedule D and the...

  • Michigan Appellate Court Rules that Sales Not Subject to Throwback Rule. Molins, Thomas // Venulex Legal Summaries;2003 Q1, p1 

    The article provides a summary of the case Kaiser Optical Systems Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury. The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed a Michigan Tax Tribunal's decision that the company's California sales to its parent corporation were not subject to the state's throwback rule and...

  • Three-Year Cap. Elliott, Graham // Accountancy;Sep2002, Vol. 130 Issue 1309, p101 

    The article focuses on the litigation between Marks & Spencer PLC and Customs concerning the way in which the three-year cap was introduced in July 1996. This has now been decided by European Court of Justice, which held that the way in which the three-year cap that was introduced by Great...

  • Taxation & Interstate Commerce in a Monitoring Case. Gold, Lessing E. // SDM: Security Distributing & Marketing;Oct2010, Vol. 40 Issue 10, p62 

    The author discusses the decision of the Court of Appeals on the case that involves an alarm company in Arizona. He explains the alarm company's business services, however, two cities in the state have complained and requested the court to make the alarm company subject for privilege tax. The...

  • Abuse of Justice. Shariff, M. Y. // Economic & Political Weekly;6/28/2014, Vol. 49 Issue 26/27, p5 

    Two letters to the editor are presented in response to the article "Akshardham Judgment I: The Law at Work" by Ravi Nair and "Akshardam: Judgment II: Between Callousness and Complicity" by Saurav Datta in the June 21, 2014 issue.

  • Court of Appeal to rule on Brightlingsea dispute over restrictive covenant. Dyer, Clare // British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition);5/10/1986, Vol. 292 Issue 6530, p1242 

    Focuses on the court case on brightlingsea dispute over restrictive covenant. Ruling of the Court of Appeals on the case; Notification of retirement; Recollection of previous High Court decision.

  • Excerpts From Ruling in Richmond V. J.A. Croson Company.  // Education Week;2/1/1989, Vol. 8 Issue 19, p20 

    Several excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in "City of Richmond versus J.A. Croson Co." are presented.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics