Supreme Court Won’t Hear Retroactive Tax Increase Cases
May 22, 2017
An unfortunate development today from the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices declined to hear several challenges to a retroactive tax law passed by Michigan. In 2014, Michigan decided that a tax compact it had signed in 1967 was no longer advantageous and repealed it, retroactively to 2008. This harmed a number of business taxpayers who had been counting on tax refunds.
We filed a brief in the case that noted past Supreme Court cases permitting only a “modest” period of retroactivity, and arguing that six years or longer is dangerously long, depriving taxpayers of reliance on the laws as they exist. The lack of clear rules on the constitutional limits of retroactive state tax laws has led to states pushing the boundaries of Due Process further and further.
The Supreme Court is asked to hear over 8,000 cases a year, but only takes 70 to 80 of them. Thus, they don’t hear over 99 percent of the cases they’re asked to hear, and sometimes it seems like the odds are even higher for tax cases. As much as I wished retroactive tax laws went away, without a clear standard, this problem will only continue to proliferate.
We at the Tax Foundation will be launching a new project to bring greater awareness to retroactive tax increases. Stay tuned.
The cases were Sonoco Products Co. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-687; Skadden, Arps, Slate, etc. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-688; Gillette Commercial Operations v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-697; IBM Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-698; Goodyear, et al. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-699; DirecTV Group Holdings v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 16-736.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback