GLRS Leasing Services, LLC v. State of Michigan Digest No. 2.24 Section 421.22 Cite as: GLRS Leasing Services, LLC v State of Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued April 27, 2009 (Docket No. 2008-095740-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: State of Michigan Respondent: GLRS Leasing Services, LLC Docket no: 2008-095740-AE Date of… Read More »
CTC Acquisition CO, LLC v. State of Michigan Digest No. 2.23 Section 421.22, Section 421.41 Cite as: CTC Acquisition CO, LLC v State of Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued November 10, 2008 (Docket No. 2008-06293-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: CTC Acquisition Co., LLC Docket no.: No. 2008-06293-AE Date… Read More »
MESC v Park Lane Management Digest no. 2.22 Section 22 Cite as: MESC v Park Lane Mgt, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued September 28, 1999 (Docket No. 210592). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Park Lane Management Docket no.: N/A Date of decision: September 28, 1999 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The… Read More »
Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc v MESC Digest no. 2.19 Sections 22, 41 Cite as: Midway Stop-n-Shop, Inc, v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Cass County Circuit Court, issued March 29, 1990 (Docket No. 86-12638AA). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Midway Stop-N-Shop, Inc. Docket no.: L86-08390-RM1 (Bypassed Board of Review) Date of decision: March 29, 1990 View/download the full… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A weighted average of the tax rate of the employer’s two predecessors which were merged into it must be used to determine the employer’s tax rate under Section 19 and 22(e)(3).
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: 1) Employer’s protest of a determination which informed the employer it was a successor to a predecessor and therefore liable for all, or a share, of the predecessor’s rating account preserved the tax rate issue even though the determination did not specify a rate. 2) Amount of assets retained by seller must be considered in determination of percentage of assets transferred.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where various business elements were transferred including some physical assets, disclosure of customers, gain of business from several customers of transferor, there was substantial evidence of a business transfer although the computation of the percentage of the rating account to be transferred was arbitrary.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: When a chain store sells 3 of 126 stores and the purchaser continues to employ 90% of the seller’s former employees, there is a transfer of business, and that part of the seller’s rating account pertaining to the employees of the 3 stores must be transferred, pursuant to Section 22 of the Act, to the purchaser.
Valley Metal Co v MESC Digest no. 2.02 Section 22 Cite as: Valley Metal Co v MESC, 365 Mich 297 (1961). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Valley Metal Products Company Docket no.: L57 2347 1040 Date of decision: December 28, 1961 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Transferred account means the rating account which… Read More »