Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury
489 U.S. 803 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the principle of intergovernmental tax immunity, as codified in 4 U.S.C. § 111, a state may not impose an income tax on the retirement benefits of federal employees while exempting the retirement benefits of its own former employees, unless the inconsistent tax treatment is directly related to and justified by significant differences between the two classes.
Facts:
- Paul S. Davis, a Michigan resident, is a retired employee of the United States Government who receives federal civil service retirement benefits.
- From 1979 through 1984, Davis paid Michigan state income tax on his federal retirement benefits.
- During this period, Michigan's income tax law (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §206.30(l)(f)) defined taxable income to exclude all retirement and pension benefits received from the State of Michigan or its political subdivisions.
- The same law defined taxable income to include retirement benefits from all other sources, including the Federal Government, above a certain threshold which Davis's benefits exceeded.
- As a result of this statutory scheme, the retirement benefits of former state and local government employees were completely exempt from Michigan's income tax, while the benefits of former federal employees were subject to the tax.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul S. Davis petitioned the Michigan Department of Treasury for refunds of taxes paid on his federal retirement benefits, and his request was denied.
- Davis filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims, which is a court of first instance for claims against the state.
- The Michigan Court of Claims denied relief.
- Davis, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court's ruling.
- Davis applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan, the state's highest court, but his application was denied.
- The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state tax scheme that exempts retirement benefits paid by the state and its political subdivisions, but taxes retirement benefits paid by the federal government, discriminate against federal employees in violation of 4 U.S.C. § 111 and the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, a state tax scheme that exempts retirement benefits for state employees but taxes those of federal employees is unlawfully discriminatory. The federal statute 4 U.S.C. § 111 prohibits states from discriminating against federal employees based on the source of their compensation, and this protection extends to retirees because retirement benefits constitute deferred compensation for past government service. The Court determined that the scope of immunity under § 111 is coextensive with the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity, which bars discriminatory taxes. Michigan's law is discriminatory on its face. The state's proffered justifications—its interest in attracting and retaining qualified state employees and the allegedly less generous nature of its own retirement benefits—are not 'significant differences between the two classes' that would justify the disparate treatment. The state's interest is irrelevant to the comparison of the two classes, and a tax exemption meant to account for benefit value would be based on the amount of benefits, not their source. Therefore, the Michigan tax violates principles of intergovernmental tax immunity.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, Michigan's tax scheme does not violate the principle of intergovernmental tax immunity. The purpose of the immunity doctrine is to prevent a state from singling out the federal government for special tax burdens, not to guarantee federal employees the best tax treatment afforded to any group. Michigan's tax applies to the vast majority of its residents, including federal retirees, while exempting only a small group of retired state employees. Because the tax burden is broadly shared, a 'political check' exists; voters can be relied upon to keep the tax from becoming excessive, which protects federal employees along with everyone else. The immunity doctrine is not a 'most favored nation' provision. Furthermore, the state has an unquestionable right to provide its employees with benefits, and providing them through a limited tax exemption is economically similar to providing them through increased, taxable retirement payments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforced the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity by applying it to state taxation of federal pensions. It invalidated Michigan's tax scheme and, by extension, similar laws in at least 14 other states, forcing them to equalize the tax treatment of state and federal retirees. The ruling established that a state's interest in its own hiring and retention is not a valid justification for discriminating against federal employees. The case clarified that any differential tax treatment between those who deal with the state government and those who deal with the federal government must be justified by inherent, significant differences between the two groups, not by the state's policy goals.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury