# Amicus Curiae Brief — Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0701%3A09

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1991
- **Citation:** 498 U.S. 358

## Text

’

; Aut, VY,
ee FILED

§

APR 27 BAP

No. SY-T LO JOSEPH F SPAMION

i Fed
In The
Supreme Court of the United States :
October_lerm, 1989 |
¢
iC) (COR T?QO)
:
;
;
\
4 A
'
'
,
On Writ Of Certiorari

lo [The Supreme Court Of Michigan :

a

BRIE OF ALCAN ALUMINUM
CORPORATION, ET AL. AS AMICLS
CURIAT IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

+

RECT AVAILARIE COPY

LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

ALCAN ALUMINUM CORPORATION,
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORPORATION,
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA,
ARMOUR AND COMPANY,

ARVIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,

ASHLAND OIL, INC.,

BP OIL INC.,

BEATRICE COMPANY,

BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
THE BOC GROUP, INC.,

BLUE BELL, INC.,

BROCKWAY, INC.,

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
CARLISLE CORPORATION,

CASTLE & COOKE, INC.,

CENTRAL SOYA COMPANY, INC.,

C. H. MASLAND & SONS,

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY,
COLT INDUSTRIES OPERATING COMPANY,
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
CONTROL DATA CORPORATION,
CRUCIBLE MATERIALS CORPORATION,
CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY,

DATA GENERAL CORPORATION,
DEARBORN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
DIAL CORPORATION,

DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,
DONALDSON COMPANY, INC.,

THE DURIRON COMPANY, INC.,

E. 1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.,
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, INC.,

THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
FIRST WISCONSIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
FISCHBACH AND MOORE, INC.,
FLEETGUARD, INC.,

FMC CORPORATION,

il

LIST OF AMICI CURIAE (Continued)

FOAMEX PRODUCTS, INC.,

GENERAL FELT INDUSTRIES, INC.,

GEO. A. HORMEL & CO.,

GRACE PETROLEUM CORPORATION,

HAMMERMILL PAPER COMPANY,

HONEYWELL INC.,

HONEYWELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

HOUSEHOLD MANUFACTURING, INC.,

HOUSEHOLD MERCHANDISE, INC.,

ICI AMERICAS, INC.,

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,

JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

KITCHENS OF SARA LEE, INC.,

LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY COMPANY,

MAGIC CHEF, INC.,

McDONALD’S CORPORATION,

MIDWAY AIRLINES, INC.,

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING
COMPANY,

MOBAY CORPORATION,

MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC.,

NORANDEX INC.,

NORTHERN TELECOM INC.,

OLIN CORPORATION,

PRESTO PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED,

PRIMERICA CORPORATION,

RCA CORPORATION,

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,

SARA LEE CORPORATION,

SCOTFOAM CORPORATION,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION,

SQUARE D COMPANY,

STANDARD PRODUCTS COMPANY,

STANDARD OIL CHEMICAL COMPANY,

SUN REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY,

SUPPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.,

LIST OF AMICI CURIAE (Continued)

TELEFLEX INCORPORATED,
THIOKOL CORPORATION,

TOYS “R” US,

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
USS GREAT LAKES FLEET, INC.,
USX CORPORATION,

W. HEATH & COMPANY,

W. R. GRACE & CO.,

WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
& 56° FF abe’ § eer yer eer recy i
ce 6 ie MP ty 4s er ere V
jf vg: yt ty re ree |
Fe 5. | Re Re CRC ie ee een SD AES 7

A. Overview of the Single Business Tax Apportion-
ey err rrr rrr aye ret /

B. Federal Constitutional Requirements for the Val-
idity of State Tax Apportionment.............. 10

C. The ] & L Interpretation of § 69 of the Act Was
Constitutionally Correct and Consistent with the

tales Cl Ce Cee oes ce esaneaees ; 25
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............... 2Y
PE te noi cc ceadacnunnswhucs ee 29

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Cases:
American Trucking Ass'ms Inc v Scheiner, 483 US
266, 107 S Ct 2829; 97 L Ed 2d 226 (1987)........ 12
AMP Inc v Michigan Department of Treasury, Court
of Claims Docket No. 86-10216-CM................ 3
Armco Inc v Michigan Department of Treasury, Court
of Claims Docket No. 84-9612 ...................5. 2
ASARCO, Inc v Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 US
307; 102 S Ct 3103; 73 L Ed 2d 787, reh den, 459
St SN as ores ness tree eae eeakerccewncns 10
Blue Bell, Inc v Michigan Department of Treasury,
Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10620-CM.......... 4
Butler Brothers v McColgan, 315 US 501, 62 S Ct
FURS We Ue Oe Pe CO sao des scbecteesvons 10, 11, 13
Complete Auto Transit Inc v Brady, 430 US 274; 97S
Ct 1097; 51 L Ed 2d 326 (1977)............ i, 12 3
Consolidation Coal Co v Michigan Department of
Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No. 82-8407...... 3

Container Corp of America v Franchise Tax Board, 463
US 159; 103 S Ct 2933; 77 L Ed 2d 545
[cuvaeed nen OOCeRe RE Mebe DereeS Re 10, 13, 14, 21, 23, 28

Digital Equipment Corp v Michigan Department of
Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10484-
BRIA Ra Neen! ETE SEF Nye 2 ig A fa ty CAS A 3

Exxon Corp v Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 447 US
207; 100 S Ct 2109; 65 L Ed 2d 66 (1980)
First Wisconsin Financial Corp v Michigan Depart-
ment of Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No.
87-11132-CM ....... Ruieeakcstcraacd maser eae 4

Friendly Ice Cream Corp v Michigan Dep't of Treas-
ury, Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10413-CM ..... 3

vi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page
Hans Rees’ Sons Inc v North Carolina ex rel Maxwell,
283 US 123; 51 S Ct 385; 75 L Ed 879 (1930)
aes aaa WW ee ate oth ara ata ei LAGS eer eee 14, 16, 17

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v Michigan Dep't of
Treasury and Wilson Foods Corp v Michigan Dep't
of Treasury, Michigan Tax Tribunal Docket Nos.
57892 and 57893 (September 5, 1984)

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v Michigan Dep't of
Treasury and Wilson Foods Corp v Michigan Dep't
of Treasury, 145 Mich App 405; 337 NW 2d 397
atta ARS is oC AL Senet tae Naa pha 2, 9, 20, 25, 26, 27

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v Michigan Dep't of
Treasury and Wilson Foods Corp v Michigan Dep't
of Treasury, 424 Mich 895; 384 NW 2d 8 (1986) 2

Magic Chef, Inc v Michigan Department of Treasury,

Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10395-CM.......... 4
Mobil Oil Corp v Comm’r of Taxes, 445 US 425; 100 S

Ct 12zo; GL Be O0 SiO CIGGS) . . kk oe cickn. 1]
Moorman Manufacturing Company v Bair, 437 US

267; 98 S Ct 2340; 57 L Ed 197 (1978).......... 11, 12
MTD Products Inc v Michigan Department of Treas-

ury, Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10416-CL...... 3

Norfolk & Western R Co v State Tax Comm'n, 390 US
317; 88 S Ct 995; 19 L Ed 2d 1201 (1968)
SOT ee ee ELE PoE POE oo ne 15, 16, 17, 22

Northern Telecom, Inc v Michigan Department of
Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10406-
CM c

2 £2 oO ei ae OR Se Os Se. Oo 8-6 6S. 6S 6 6 6 OS 6S 6 OR a @ O

Vil
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES -— Continued
Page

Northwestern States Portland Cement Co v Minneso-
ta, 358 US 450; 79 S Ct 357; 3 L Ed 2d 421 (1959) .... 10

Penton/Industrial Publishing Co Inc v Michigan De-
partment of Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No.
i RS ee re rrr Ee eee T ET eT CTT ELT 3

Presto Products, Inc v Michigan Department of Treas-
ury, Court of Claims Docket No. 83-8827........... 4

Sara Lee Corp v Michigan Department of Treasury,
Court of Claims Docket No. 87-11143-CM.......... 4

Sheller-Globe Corp v Michigan Department of Treas-

ury, Court of Claims Docket No. 87-11073-CM .. 5
Trinova Corp v Michigan Department of Treasury,

Court of Claims Docket No. 86-10430-CM....... 3, 28
Trinova Corp v Michigan Department of Treasury, 166

Mich App 656; 421 NW2d 258 (1988) ............5, 6
Trinova Corp v Michigan Department of Treasury, 433

Mich 141, 445 NW 2d 428 (1989) ....... 6, 17, 25, 26
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Dep't of Revenue,

a0 Un Za; 700 F 26 W055 (ISR)... 2. eee eee 24
Underwood Typewriter Co v Chamberlain, 254 US

113; 41 S Ct 45; 65 L Ed 165 (1920)............ 10, 11
USX Corp v Michigan Department of Treasury, Court

of Claims Docket No. 86-10901-CM................ 5
Wallace v Hines, 253 US 66; 40S Ct 435; 64 L Ed 782 -

EN Ce cig Sheek aad oe ose sane a ee ea kee a EONS 17

Wm Wrigley Jr Co v Michigan Department of Treas-
ury, Court of Claims Docket No. 87-11013-CM ..... 4

Vill

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page
STATUTES:
Michigan Single Business Tax Act, 1975 PA 228,
MCL 208.1 et seq; MSA 7.558(1) et seq ....... passim
iN 80416659460 s KERSRAON CESS CSSD SAO SERENE SS I, te a2
Per errr Tee et Peery Tee TTT Tee 7
EE aban veces sceaeeehueee Fasnsaeteanky eyes as a
ee er ae ac ea eee oe ee 7
8 Se Pee ere eee ee eee ee er eee 8
MS ig ay soe CANS CLS TRETIV REE ERN CT ORS CORD Es passim
oe eg ee er er ere i. 2
Multi-State Tax Compact Act, 1969 PA 343; MCL
205.581 et seq; MSA 4.146(101) et seq. ............ 20
Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act
EINE » .

PA. 39 and therefore Judgement in favor of Plaintiff is
appropriate,

Defendant also raises a statute of limitations defense
With respect to vears 1977 throngh 1979. Plaintiff arenes
the statute was tolled by a waiver of the federal statnte
of limitations on Plaintiff's federal income tax return for
these vears, citing MCI, 208.97, The parties disagree as
to the interpretation of © S85 of the Single Business Tax
Act. This Court incorporates by reference its decision in
BE. T. du Pout de Nemours and Company vo Michiqan De-
partment of Treasury, Court of Claims Docket No. &6-
10381-CM, to the effeet that waiver of the statute of limi-
tations on Plaintiff's Federal Income Tax return tolls the
running of the Single Business Tax Statute of Limita-
tions on refund claims. NOW, THEREFORE, [T IS

ORDERED, that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as

ao omatter of law against the Defendant herein in the

106¢
| an hiihial 2».- Northe ril Ts ly COM

amount. of $46,263, together with interest calculated in ac-

cordance with MCLA 208.97(3) and MCLA 205.80(5).
Carolyn Stell
Honorable Carolyn Stell, Cireuit
Judge and Judge of the Court of
Claims

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

/s/ Russell FE. Prins

Russell E. Prins (P1110)
intered on this 25 day of February, TOSS.
Jenean K. Battin

Clerk of the Court of Claims

Hussies
ne
5 ae

Min
(ia '

®*her Durable
*Suonf ve turers

YorDoable
*Sevifa turer

Primary Metal
bests ies

Pabricat ed
Metal Preduacts

Maciuiner, -
Fyrept Ploctrical

lransportat ion
Typripeamat

[rarcsportat ion

Camumications &
Mrilit ies

Wiolegte Prade

Petal Prede

Finance
Insurance,

Real “state

Services

wnt (Ol yor

Al) Aetinsss

219, 5,723

2,131,773, 2

3, 19, 968, 105

3, 269, 995, 332

1, 353,854, 985

1,48), 260, 7

2,201, 178,29

10, 533,916, 766

1,551,436, 3%

1, 392, 738,487
910, 291, 140

9,574, 169, 66%

1, 703, 262,005

6,246, 290,45

$6, 3H, D7, Ws

13.5

6.7

7.0

2.9

3.2

4,7

22.7

3.3

3.0
3.3

20.6

3.7

17.9

66.1

59.6

67.6

—= -

76,7

TAM A

Carponents
of
Michigan Tax Base

Z of % of Zz of % of Zo

Colum Row Column how Colu

Business Inca Total Total “Additions Total Total —_Subtractions Tot.
$ (12,602,299) (9,4) (7.2) $ 71, %1 ,657 0.5 40.6 $ 9,730,533 0.
27,191, %9 0,8 6.8 299,722,279 bat 59.9 84,125,928 2.

191, 594,020 3.0 3.9 4D, 399,492 3.1 16.6 78, 440, 286 a
4R, 663,253 12.8 11.0 638, 386,173 4.5 16.0 189,180,129 » %

] 003, 399, 373 29.3 20.3 1 087,689,629 vat 22.0 411,974, 6l 11.!
91,985,953 at 5.5 279, 44,412 2.9 16.9 66,698,017 1,
171,215, 3% 5.0 9.3 27), 195, 376 9 14.6 72,247,040 2.
329,437, %2 9.6 11.6 444,475,451 3.2 15.7 141,972,457 4,
(1,093, 328,495) (32.0) (9.8) 2, 163,53, 4388 oe 19.5 497,675,853 14,’
(118,151,923) (3.5) (6.5) 433, 01,511 2.9 22.3 28,858,069 0.5
(20,903,441) (0.6) (0.8) 1, 385, 788,927 9.8 51.1 45,514,715 1.
44? 610,72) 12.9 20.1 432,287 ,62? 3.1 19.6 193,159,575 »
RD), 319,451 26.0 7.4 2,185, SOR, 33% 15.5 18,1 555,462,675 16.6
(52,666, SOB) (1.5) (1.8) 1,978,897, 9% 14.9 9.3 773, 528,859 22.

1, 222,578,432 $5.7 13.2 _ 2,097,690, 493 14.9 2.7 330, 346, 763 9.5
$3,429,493, 371 9.3 5.7 $14, 19,965,678 WM, 23.3 = $3,4698,225,460 = 1.6

thit 73 Poverlgsis of the
y 4 ol

(alia

Coanpetyaat ion ‘Total

$ 1p, 01 0,087 1
fig Ma Se oe 1)

I 31,773 ‘i! “4%

¥, 10) ad Wr (;.7

eB 70

Doe bP oe UM PY)

1 bt), 0) 8)? 1.2

“OL D7 4.7

POSS TA, 7a ee |

POOL 4M, Wo 13

1, 892, 7 83,447 4)

1 dO ab, ba 14

LA, LOAN fies Jt

1,08, 062 0 $.7

PP Dee BPD m.5

Hi SM AG Ta

Viehigan Single Business

Zz of
low
Total

(#).]

*F).0)

SOL6

Ieesineess Toco

$ (12,0417, 299)

27 1 oe

I! )] en (a ad)

4,603,953

1,173, 399,973

QT, OR5 054

71,21, Vo

el

(1,078, 8 495)

(118, 151,923)

(.N),'8)3, 441)
4 1? ol , 7M)

aie | J yi 451

(52,606), 0M)

1222, 578,492

$Y 40409, V1

Tai

Z of
Column
Total
(0,4)

(V8

5.0

6

(W.0)

(3.5)

(0.6)
1.9

HO

(1.5)

TARE A

Components
of
Michigan Tax aa

2 of
Row
Total __ Nidit ion:
ee ) a 71, ‘el 07
6.8 722,299
3.9 49), 300,492
11.0 OF, ¥%H,173
20.3 1 087,689,629
» Me’ 279, Wes 41?
9,3 2A),1%, 376
11.6 WA S75, 451
(9,8) 2,103, 9%),4 83
(6.5) 4013, 91, O11
(0.8) 1, 885, 738,907
1), 1 49,287 62)
A 2, 185, 0R, 1M
(1.8) 1,979,897,00%
13.2 2,097 649%
» $14, TOR, 965 678

7 of
Column
Total

5

1.0)

2 of

)mw

‘Te tal

“t),

59

16.

16,

Ih.

1
‘6,

fy

aD

fy

()

0

6

A

Subt raw tions

$ Q, 4 9 $3

8 125,998

78, 440), 256

189,180,129

411,974, 61

(), 688,017

72,247,008)

141,072,457

497,675,853

28,858,009

45,914,715
133,199,575

tr / ) t
5460 675

774,528,859

VY), ify, 703

$3,469,295, 40)

Z% af

so

Colum
Toral

0.3

9.5

WD.O

7% of
uw

Tota!

(4.7)

(8.3)

(4.0)

Total __

$ = 176,1%,812

MWA, 5,023

2, 585, 326, 728

3, 988, 737,402

4,949, 109, 773

1,657, 6,433

1,849, 424,197

2,844,018, 646

11,106,448, 85%

1,807,927, 883

?, 712,109,258
2,207,029, 907

12,07 525, 774

2 R95, 4, HI

9, 2H, 618

44,457, 08D, 853

Z of
Colum
Total

18.4

3.0

Z of
Row
Total

1.0

W.1

1.9

1.0

17).1

1.1

11.0

1H).0

1).0

bD.0

1.0
ie ae)

WD, 1

100.0

9

10,0

zs

EXHIBIT

108e¢
Bah hit Y4 Ss wale Bu Shine Ss Tu - (‘al ulation

Average
Apportionment
Tax Base x Percentage

(major com- _ factors are
ponents are sales, prop-
federal tax- erty, and pay-

able income, roll (not the
compensation, same as com-

depreciation, pensation Apportioned
interest, component Tax Base* x Tax Rate Tax
royalties and __ in tax base) Liability

dividends)

* Capital acquisition adjustments are allowed to apportioned
tax base, but are not revelant to this case.

=—ee OE OEE EEE ___ I

10V¢
Exhibit 25—UDITPA Prefatory Note

UNIFORM DIVISION OF INCOME PORK
TAX PURPOSES ACT
Pier arony Nove
The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes
Aet is designed for enactment in those states which levy

tuxes on or measured by net ineome,

The need for a uniform method of division of epee
for tax purposes alongs the several taxing jurisdictions
has been recognized for many years and has long vain
recommended by the Conneil of State Governments. There
Is no other practical means of assuring that a taxpayer
is not taxed on more than its net income, At present _—
are Various formulae for determining the amount of in-
come to be taxed in use by the states, and the differences
in the formulae produce inequitable results. Many states
cow use the three factor formulae of this Aet. The prob-
lem has been well analyzed and its historical background
outlined in an article appearing in 18 Ohio State Law

Journal, page S4.

The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes
Net is the result of conferences with the reprenentaaeten:
of the Controller's Institute of Ameriea, the Council of
State Governments and various interested individuals. It
was promulgated in 1957. The comments in the at
reprinting of the Act were revised and extended in) Peb-
ruary 1066 in order to clarify the selutions to some of the
problems which have been experienced in: seeuring enact-

ment of the Act in the several states.

Miareh 1, 1966

110e
Rahilit 26--UDITP A & 18 and Editorial Comment

Seetion IS. If the allocation and apportionment pro-
visions of this Act do not fairly represent the extent of
the taxpayer's business aetivity in this state, the taxpayer
may petition for or the [tax administrator] may require,
in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer's business ae
tivity, if reasonable:

(a) separate accounting:
(hb) the exelusion of any one or more of the factors:

(¢) the inelusion of one or more additional factors
whieh will fairly represent the taxpayer's business activity
in this state: or

(dq) the employment of any other method to effectuate
an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpuy-
er’s income,

(‘oMMENT

It is anticipated that this Act will be made a part of
the income tax acts of the several states. For that reason,
this seetion does not spell out the procedure te be fol
lowed in the event of a disagreement between the taxpayer
and the tax administrator. The ineome tax acts of eneh

state presumably outline the proceedure to be followed,

Section TS is intended as a broad authority, within
the principle of apportioning business income fairly among
the states which have contact with the income, to the tax
administrator to vary the apportionment formula and
to vary the system of allocation where the provisions of
the Act do not fairly represent the extent of the tax-

mavers business aetivitv in the state. The phrases in

llle
Erhibit 26-—UDITPA & 18 and Editorial Comment

section I8(d) do not foreclose the use of one method for
some business activity and a different method for a dif-
ferent business activity. Neither does the phrase “meth.
od” limit the administrator to substituting factors in the
formula. The phrase means any other method of fairly
representing the extent of the tuxpayer’s business activ-

itv in the state.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0701%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.