Michigan Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Denying Taxpayers a Permanent $700 Million Cut 

Despite three attempts to appeal the perplexing decision, courts have again upheld the Michigan Department of Treasury’s misinterpretation of a 2015 law that would have saved taxpayers over $700 million annually. This Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court released a single-paragraph statement saying, “…we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” 

The 2015 law, passed by the Republican dominated House and Senate, and signed by Republican governor Rick Snyder, amended Michigan’s tax code and set automatic triggers that, if met, would reduce the state’s income tax. These triggers were set to occur when the state’s tax revenue exceeded its rate of inflation in a year. 

Unfortunately for taxpayers, Gretchen Whitmer happened to be in office when these conditions finally occurred for the first time in 2023.  

Thus, the reductions, once universally regarded as permanent, were subject to an alternative “interpretation.” In February of 2023, the Whitmer administration’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, signed an opinion claiming that the reductions were originally designed to be temporary, 

“… because that situation is only temporary, it makes sense that … the Legislature intended the relief to taxpayers to be only temporary as well,” argued Nessel.  

Rather than speculate the legislature’s intentions when drafting the law, Nessel could perhaps turn to their actual opinions. Former Governor Rick Snyder, then-Speaker Kevin Cotter, and then-Senate majority leader Arlan Meekhof have all released statements explicitly saying they intended the reductions to be permanent.  

“… if Gov. Whitmer and Michigan Democrats want to deny that relief and raise taxes on Michigan families, they should draft a bill and vote on it.”, said Meekhof. 

Based on all the available evidence, the original drafters of the bill intended permanent tax cuts. Nessel’s written opinion, claim as it may that she’s interpreting the bill as originally intended, not only goes against the original intention of the bill’s signers but also against the concept of tax triggers as applied in nearly every case. 

While the bill could have benefitted from more precise language, the majority of triggers like Michigan’s are permanent. The argument that the cuts could be temporary is esoteric at best and, at worst, a blatant manipulation of the bill’s legal wording. 

Despite this, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Nessel’s opinion in March, even in the face of clear evidence that the Whitmer administration would do anything to keep taxes high. 

Initially, Whitmer was so against lowering the state’s taxes that she chose to bypass the trigger rather than allow it to happen. The scheme she devised, which she tried to pass off as an attempt to relieve inflation, involved paying taxpayers $180 checks to drain the state’s budget surplus before it triggered the cuts. As written, the bill wouldn’t send any of these checks if the state legislature didn’t pass it by mid-April of 2023, which just so happened to be early enough that the excess funds wouldn’t be counted as revenue, thereby circumventing the trigger. 

In the end, however, Whitmer’s attempts to avoid the trigger paid off, setting a disturbing precedent for the tax-hungry administration. Democrats were willing not only to try and strongarm a budget loophole into passing, but when Republicans held firm, the partisan Attorney General willfully misinterpreted existing law to support her Democrat agenda.  

Michigan democrats, it seems, are willing to do anything in the name of higher taxes.