Metzen v. State Board of Tax Administration

Michigan Supreme Court

Metzen v. State Board of Tax Administration

3 N.W.2d 870, 301 Mich. 532, 1942 Mich. LEXIS 566

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1942

DocketDocket No. 64, Calendar No. 41,873.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 N.W.2d 870 (Metzen v. State Board of Tax Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metzen v. State Board of Tax Administration, 3 N.W.2d 870, 301 Mich. 532, 1942 Mich. LEXIS 566 (Mich. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

I am unable to agree with the opinion proposed by Mr. Justice BOYLES, in which he distinguishes the case of Acorn Iron Works,Inc., v. State Board of Tax Administration, 295 Mich. 143 (139 A.L.R. 368). I cannot distinguish the stipulated facts in this case from the circumstances surrounding the transactions involved in the Acorn Case.

The transit-mixed concrete involved in plaintiff's operations when poured in place ceased to be personal property and became a part of the realty, and is, therefore, not subject to the tax and is not affected by the amendment. See Act No. 167, Pub. Acts 1933, as subsequently amended by Act No. 313, Pub. Acts 1939 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 3663-1, Stat. Ann. 1940 Cum. Supp. § 7.521).

I think the Acorn Case is controlling and decisive of the issues presented in this record and that the *Page 541 facts fall squarely within the above-quoted proviso of the statute. The decree below should be affirmed. It is so ordered, but without costs.

CHANDLER, C.J., and STARR, WIEST, BUTZEL, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred with BUSHNELL, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

I am unable to agree with the opinion proposed by Mr. Justice BOYLES, in which he distinguishes the case of Acorn Iron Works,Inc., v. State Board of Tax Administration, 295 Mich. 143 (139 A.L.R. 368). I cannot distinguish the stipulated facts in this case from the circumstances surrounding the transactions involved in the Acorn Case.

The transit-mixed concrete involved in plaintiff's operations when poured in place ceased to be personal property and became a part of the realty, and is, therefore, not subject to the tax and is not affected by the amendment. See Act No. 167, Pub. Acts 1933, as subsequently amended by Act No. 313, Pub. Acts 1939 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 3663-1, Stat. Ann. 1940 Cum. Supp. § 7.521).

I think the Acorn Case is controlling and decisive of the issues presented in this record and that the *Page 541 facts fall squarely within the above-quoted proviso of the statute. The decree below should be affirmed. It is so ordered, but without costs.

CHANDLER, C.J., and STARR, WIEST, BUTZEL, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred with BUSHNELL, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.W.2d 870, 301 Mich. 532, 1942 Mich. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metzen-v-state-board-of-tax-administration-mich-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack