HFZ TAXI INC V DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROSA BRANNON,
UNPUBLISHED
March 14, 1997
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 184262
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174389
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
SIBERA BRANNON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186545
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174390
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
SIBERA BRANNON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186546
Michigan Tax Tribuanl
LC No. 00195910
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
SIBERA BRANNON,
-1
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186547
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00220645
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
TROY BRANNON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186548
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174391
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
R & T TAXI, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186549
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174392
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
SB&B, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186550
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174393
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
___________________________________________
-2
SIGMONT TAXI, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
-3
v
No. 186551
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174394
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
VEEDER TAXI, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186552
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174395
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
WESTFIELD TAXI, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186553
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174396
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
HFZ TAXI, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 186554
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00174674
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Marilyn Kelly and J.B. Sullivan,* JJ.
_______________________________________________________________
*Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-4
PER CURIAM.
-5
Petitioners appeal as of right from the Tax Tribunal’s decision affirming the judge’s denial of
their motion for summary disposition, except with regard to two tax assessments, and affirming her grant
of summary disposition for respondent. We affirm.
Petitioners Rosa and Troy Brannon contend that the tribunal erred in upholding the tax
assessments respondent issued against them. As petitioners admit, they had the burden of proving that
the assessments were incorrect. Kellogg Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 204 Mich App 489, 493; 516
NW2d 108 (1994).
A review of the record indicates that Rosa and Troy Brannon knew or should have known that
Sibera Brannon was using their names for business purposes and using them in the gasoline tax refund
program. Moreover, Rosa received checks in her name from the Department of Treasury and cashed
some of those checks herself. Troy endorsed checks and benefited financially from money he received
from refund claims. The tribunal’s conclusion that petitioners had not met their burden was supported
by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. Saginaw General Hosp v City
of Saginaw, 208 Mich App 595, 598 n 1; 528 NW2d 805 (1995).
Petitioner Sibera Brannon and the corporate petitioners contend that the tribunal erred in
upholding the fraud penalties issued against them because respondent failed to prove that Sibera had a
fraudulent state of mind. We disagree.
Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case. Summerville v Dep’t of Treasury, 7 MTT 916, 920 (1994), citing People
v Kimble, 60 Mich App 690; 233 NW2d 26 (1975), People v Strong, 143 Mich App 442, 452; 372
NW2d 335 (1985). Sibera testified at the hearing that he (1) participated in the gasoline refund
program from 1984 to 1989, (2) submitted invoices which he filled out, (3) signed some of the invoices
with fake initials, and (4) submitted claim forms in others’ names, without their consent. He received
and cashed all of the checks from these claims and acknowledged that the claim form required the
original invoice. We find that there was competent, substantial and material evidence on the whole
record from which to infer an intent to defraud. Summerville v Dep’t of Treasury, 7 MTTR 916, 920
(1994).
Finally, petitioners argue that the fraud penalty was improperly assessed after expiration of the
statutory period of limitations. We disagree.
MCL 205.27a(2); MSA 7.657(27a)(2) provides in pertinent part:
If a person subject to tax fraudulently conceals any liability for the tax or a part
of the tax, or fails to notify the department of any alteration in or modification of federal
tax liability, the department, within 2 years after discovery of the fraud or the failure to
notify, shall assess the tax with penalties and interest as provided by this act, computed
from the date on which the tax liability originally accrued.
-6
The running of the statute of limitations is suspended for the period pending a final determination of the
tax. MCL 205.27a(3); MSA 7.657(27a)(3).
Petitioners and respondent agree that the statute of limitations is two years. Petitioners admit
that initial notices were received in 1990, less than one year after respondent discovered the fraud.
Petitioner further acknowledges that the administrative appeal process was pursued upon issuance of
the initial assessments and that they exercised their right to an informal conference pursuant to MCL
205.21(2); MSA 7.657(21)(2). The fact that final assessments did not occur until 1993 and 1994,
more than two years later, is irrelevant. The limitations period was suspended while petitioners
administratively appealed from the assessment. MCL 205.27a(3); MSA 7.657(27a)(3). See Fisher v
Dep’t of Treasury, 6 MTTR 63 (1990).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Marilyn Kelly
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
-7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
