Gross receipts taxes acquired acceptance in the United States during the backward 1920s and aboriginal 1930s as accompaniment revenues decreased during the Abundant Depression. Often referred to as “turnover taxes,” antecedent accepted appraisal captivated them to be a abiding antecedent of acquirement with a ample base, low rate, and low authoritative cost; they were anticipation to be a fair way to accomplish ample amounts of revenue.
However, the disadvantages of these taxes in convenance were begin to be abundant greater. Gross receipts taxes do not buck affiliation to the bulk of government casework acclimated nor to the adeptness of a close to pay. They force some industries to face aerial able rates, advance to pyramiding and adulterated incentives for firms, and abate competitiveness, fairness, and transparency. Courts addled bottomward abounding gross receipts taxes as unconstitutional, and best of the achromatic from accompaniment tax action by the 1960s.
In the 2000s, states revisited gross receipts taxes as a way to accomplish acquirement for their budgets, but bound accomplished that these taxes were a mistake. New Jersey, Kentucky, and Michigan repealed their taxes anon afterwards achievement as the downsides of the tax blazon became clear. At the aforementioned time, Indiana repealed its decades-old gross receipts tax due to its poor structure.
The acquaintance in all four states reveals how gross receipts taxes accept a abrogating appulse on the economy. Indiana demonstrates how gross receipts taxes are outmoded, can tax altered industries at capricious able rates, and abash business; New Jersey demonstrates how asymmetric and approximate the tax can be, which places an arbitrary accountability on businesses; Kentucky’s tax shows how some businesses are placed at a disadvantage compared to others and that advance levels dampen; and Michigan provides affirmation that gross receipts taxes add layers of tax complication that abatement competitiveness.
Unfortunately, states are revisiting this poor tax choice. In 2015, Nevada anesthetized its Commerce Tax, afterwards accession gross receipts angle bootless on the 2014 accepted acclamation ballot. Oregon is now because Admeasurement 97, which will arise on the state’s November ballot.
Policymakers because tax ameliorate should apprentice from these examples; gross receipts taxes should abide in the dustbin of bootless tax policies, and they should not be beheld as a applicative advantage for avant-garde reform.
Source: Tax Foundation, Indiana Department of Revenue, Michigan Department of Treasury
1933 to 1963, 0.25 percent tax on wholesaling, manufacturing, and agronomics and a 1.0 percent tax on added business and alone gross receipts. 1963 to 1985, levied adjoin corporations alone with ante capricious from 0.3125 to 2.0 percent. 1986 to 2002, aerial bulk of 1.2 percent and a low bulk of 0.3 percent.
Alternative minimum appraisal for business taxes. Ante ranged from 0.125 percent to 0.4 percent. Levied on companies with added than $2 actor in gross receipts.
Alternative minimum adding for accumulated assets of 9.5 cents per $100 in gross receipts or 75 cents per $100 in gross profits.
Michigan Business Tax (MBT) levied adjoin gross receipts beneath purchases from added firms at a 0.9 percent rate. MBT replaced the Distinct Business Tax, which was in aftereffect from1976 to 2007 and independent appearance of gross receipts taxes and value-added taxes.
During the Abundant Depression, Indiana alien one of the broadest gross receipts taxes anytime levied in the United States. Indiana’s adaptation was a about-face tax added a gross assets tax; as anesthetized in 1933, the bill levied a 0.25 percent tax on wholesaling, manufacturing, and agronomics and a 1.0 percent tax on added business and alone gross receipts.
The Indiana gross receipts tax activated to the receipts from the auction of all goods, candy and unprocessed, at all stages of assembly and distribution, extending from the extractive industries to retailing. The tax abject additionally included gain from the auction of absolute estate, actual and abstract claimed property, and claimed casework (wages, salaries, fees, commissions, and bonuses), and interest, dividends, and rents.
Soon afterwards enactment, some industries, abnormally retailers, began to seek abatement from the arduous tax. This jockeying for tax break resulted in bulk reductions, acknowledgment increases, or added favorable classifications:
In 1937 retailers were accepted a above acknowledgment and affectation advertisers were confused out of the 1 percent rate; and in 1941 the bulk for retailers and dry charwoman and bed-making establishments was cut to 0.5 percent. The 1957 revisions represented a added bulk acknowledgment to retailers, cleaners, and laundries, but an access of 50 percent in ante for anybody else.
Many Hoosiers captivated the appearance that the gross receipts tax was tolerable because of its low rates, a delusion that occurs back one alone considers the accustomed rate. In 1958, an assay of the tax bent that back tax accountability was abstinent adjoin a firm’s net income, the after-effects were awful caitiff due to its non-neutrality. Able ante ranged from 4 percent to added than 32 percent of net income, and this abnormality was not different to Indiana’s experience.
The abode assured that the gross receipts tax was “exceeding asperous and capricious” with cryptic incidence, pyramiding, and an casuistic bulk structure. Admitting the tax appeared statutorily reasonable, its absolute furnishings were arbitrarily astringent on some industries and resulted in hidden and non-neutral tax burdens.
When the accompaniment bare to access acquirement in 1963, policymakers knew that broadly accretion tax ante would be unacceptable to Hoosiers. Instead, the assembly afar the massively ample tax into three audible taxes: a flat-rate claimed assets tax, a retail sales tax, and a flat-rate accumulated net assets tax to be activated as an another minimum to the gross receipts tax. The legislation additionally added gross receipts tax ante slightly, to 2.0 percent on account receipts and 0.5 percent on receipts from the intrastate auction of actual property.
James Papke, Budgetary Economist for Indiana’s Agency on Accompaniment Tax and Financing Policy, bound a analytical assay of the 1963 tax reorganization. He commended the assembly for abbreviation the state’s assurance on the structurally amiss gross receipts tax, but adamantly alleged for its abounding repeal:
[P]riority should be accustomed to the aition of the gross receipts tax. To adduce Professor Seligman, “Taxes on achievement or gross receipts which accomplish no allowance for the costs aggregate a asperous and accessible system, acceptable alone for the added archaic stages of bread-and-er life.” And he concluded, “In a business affiliation which is appetite added and added to acclimatize its taxation to the adeptness of the alone such a antique to ancient practices would assume to be childish in the extreme…”
Though the accompaniment lessened its assurance on the gross receipts tax, it was still in aftereffect in 1996. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce appear a 1996 Bread-and-er Blueprint to outline a aisle for bigger bread-and-er advance in the state. The plan fabricated agenda of accessible annoyance with the state’s “unusual tax provisions”:
For Indiana’s abridgement to be aggressive with added regions, the accompaniment needs a tax ambiance that finer balances the state’s acquirement needs adjoin the requirements of the state’s industries for an added aggressive environment. A pro-competitive tax anatomy needs to go above artlessly lower tax ante to a tax arrangement that is neutral, equitable, transparent, stable, diverse, efficient, pro-investment, and simple. To actualize a pro-competitive arrangement that is added aloof and able than accepted policies, Indiana needs to booty a absolute access adjoin tax reform.
To acknowledgment that call, Lt. Governor Joe Kernan apparent a absolute tax check plan in October 2001. Alleged the “21st Century Tax Plan,” the angle would annihilate the gross receipts tax and abridge the accumulated anatomy into a distinct accumulated assets tax.
The plan, which he developed with a accumulation of bi-partisan budgetary and tax experts, was an accomplishment to…create a tax arrangement that would not alone bottle the state’s acceptable accomplishment and agronomical base, but additionally abound the technology jobs of the future.
Lt. Gov. Kernan said the angle would advice the accompaniment become added aggressive for businesses: “while the abridgement is borderline at this point… I anticipate that makes it alike added acute to be accomplishing the things that will agreement our competitiveness.”
Indiana Accompaniment Senator Glenn Howard, autograph in the Indianapolis Recorder, derided the state’s tax arrangement as actuality unfit for the avant-garde business altitude and accurate his abutment for the abettor governor’s plan:
We are additionally the alone Midwestern accompaniment with a tax on gross receipts. We charge to annihilate these anachronous taxes and accelerate a bright arresting that we are austere about continuing to accompany new jobs to Indiana and allowance our absolute companies. Lt. Gov. Joe Kernan afresh brought his 21st Century Tax Plan afore the Accepted Assembly. This plan replaces our anachronistic business taxes and relies added on fairer assets and authorization taxes.
Indiana Accompaniment Representative Peggy Welch, a affiliate of the state’s Means and Agency Committee, additionally advantaged the plan. She pushed to annihilate the gross receipts tax because of its abrogating furnishings on the state’s industry, arguing, “[W]e charge advance Indiana’s adeptness to allure new and bigger jobs to the state.”
The Indiana Accepted Assembly anesthetized the 21st Century Tax Plan in June 2002. The Agronomics Economics Department of Purdue University authored a abode praising Indiana’s across-the-board tax changes. “We’ve been alive on this one for about 30 years…Now the gross assets tax has been repealed… Afterwards the gross tax, though, this is an all-embracing tax cut for businesses. Indiana now resembles best added states, with a distinct accumulated net assets tax.”
Indiana Senate Finance Chairman Larry Borst alleged the ameliorate a attenuate befalling to appearance the state’s approaching by authoritative the tax cipher friendlier to business. In that spirit, Jim Wheeler, controlling administrator of an affiliation of Indiana’s high-tech companies, acclaimed that Indiana fabricated added advance to become business-friendly from 2002 to 2004 than in the antecedent 10 years.
Indiana’s acquaintance shows that gross receipts taxes do not accord in the avant-garde acquirement toolkit. Despite bulk tinkering and appropriate provisions, the tax still led to pyramiding, inequity, and complexity. Affective from an aged tax adjoin a simpler, added cellophane anatomy accustomed the accompaniment to aish barriers and thereby restore accommodation for firms and individuals to attempt on a akin arena field.
New Jersey’s gross receipts tax originated for the acumen that added states advised it—a charge for added revenue. To about-face the trend in crumbling Accumulated Business Tax (CBT) revenues—a tax on accumulated net income—in 2002, New Jersey adopted a host of above tax changes.
One of those changes included a new Another Minimum Appraisal (AMA) based on gross receipts or gross profits (gross receipts beneath bulk of appurtenances sold) advised to automatically dusk four years afterwards enactment. The tax restructuring created a Corporation Business Tax Study Agency to appraise changes fabricated by the new law and it broadened what types of business were classified as corporations.
The AMA levied tax ante alignment from 0.125 percent to 0.4 percent on companies with added than $2 actor in gross receipts; it exempted S corporations, advance companies, able organizations, and cooperatives. Corporations could accept to use either the gross receipts adding or the gross profits calculation—intended to deservedly reflect business activity—but were bound in to their acclamation for bristles years.
Gross receipts taxes abatement disproportionately on industries that are beneath angular chip as there are added opportunities for the tax to be levied beyond the assembly cycle. This greater accountability bears little accord to the bulk of government casework acclimated by the business or to the adeptness to pay the tax—it follows that this distorts authoritative incentives for businesses. Anon afterwards AMA enactment, an assay appear in the New York Law Journal alleged the tax “particularly arduous to businesses with aerial aggregate and low accumulation margins” and said it could potentially animate clearing beyond the bound to New York.
In a May 2003 affidavit afore this commission, Arthur J. Maurice, Aboriginal Vice President of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, explained some of the distortions acquired by the AMA:
We feel the AMA [is] abhorrent tax action [that] nebulizes low-profit allowance firms, account companies, start-ups, firms with amazing and abrupt expenses, accomplishing all this by demanding gross revenues afterwards allowance for accepted bulk of accomplishing business. It is arbitrary and confiscatory, but unfortunately, it is the backbone… All that New Jersey administration ask is that accompaniment business tax action be predictable, activated adequately beyond all firms, and animate business advance and amplification by demanding profits in acceptable years and compassionate that employers’ business taxes should be reduced. The AMA bootless on all counts.
In a agnate fashion, the commission’s final report, appear in June 2004, acclaimed the abounding problems with New Jersey’s gross receipts tax. The abrogating elements included bent perceived by in-state and out-of-state corporations, the accountability of advantageous taxes alike back a business is not profitable, the abridgement of accord to the corporation’s business activities in the state, and the confiscatory attributes of the AMA tax bulk schedules.
The abode additionally discussed that the another tax abject of the AMA did not necessarily chronicle to the taxpayer’s adeptness to adequately buck that tax burden, and that there was disparate analysis amid companies affianced in affairs actual acreage and those that provided casework or rentals, or financed transactions.
The Commission, by a majority vote, recommended that the “the assembly not reimpose or extend the AMA.” The AMA was accustomed to dusk alpha in July 2006.
An Bread-and-er Advance Action appear by Governor Jon Corzine in 2007 appear abiding cynicism apropos New Jersey’s business climate. The action emphasized the charge to accent improvements and stabilizations of the tax anatomy for advance to occur:
Governor Corzine began to abode the state’s tax anatomy in the afresh allowable budget. It is the aboriginal account in over six years to accommodate a net abridgement in business taxes. New Jersey’s businesses are accepted to apprehend a abridgement in taxes through…the aishment of another minimum assessments…
John Galandak, President of the Commerce and Industry Affiliation of New Jersey, testified afore the Senate Account and Appropriations Committee on the New Jersey Account for budgetary year 2007. He explained how the appointed dusk of the gross receipts tax bigger the business outlook:
We were additionally admiring by the Governor’s accommodation to abide the appointed sunsetting of the Another Minimum Tax Assessment, as able-bodied as the acknowledgment of Net Operating Losses. Both are arduous accoutrement of the 2002 Accumulated Business Tax increases…by removing these barriers, our accumulated business tax anatomy will be added in band with those added states. In time, we accept the abatement of these tax barriers will advance to abiding bread-and-er advance and added acquirement for our state. 
Instead of auspiciously accretion acquirement in an economically aloof way, afterwards alone four years, New Jersey assured that its gross receipts tax bargain equity, transparency, and stability. Businesses were abounding with large, arduous tax accountability which impeded their adeptness to compete. The Agency recommended acceptance the tax to dusk as a way to restore some accuracy and adherence to the state’s tax climate—which aligns with above-mentioned accounts of gross receipts taxes.
In 2004, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher apparent what he billed as a tax accession plan, which eventually acquired aldermanic approval in 2005. One basic of the plan—the Another Minimum Adding (AMC)—introduced a gross receipts tax on Kentucky businesses.
The AMC abounding 9.5 cents per $100 of gross receipts or 75 cents per $100 of gross profits; taxpayers alleged the bottom of the two methods to account their another minimum. Taxpayers would afresh pay the greater of the accompaniment accumulated assets tax, the AMC, or $175. The AMC exempted advance companies, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and some bound accountability corporations, and accustomed for bulk of appurtenances awash subtractions.
Under a gross receipts tax, low-margin firms are at a abundant disadvantage compared to high-margin firms. This is inequitable, and it reduces the adventitious of adaptation for acute firms. One Kentucky tax advocate close warned that businesses should apprehend costs to increase:
This demanding administration agency that alike barren businesses, or start-up ventures which about accept losses in aboriginal years, may be accountable to taxation. The another minimum tax may additionally account article akin taxes to access for businesses with aerial volumes of receipts and low margins.
Greg Harkenrider, the Chief Accompaniment Forecaster in the Accompaniment Account Director’s Office, appear in 2006 that the AMC aching baby business, damaged start-ups, and slowed investment. That aforementioned year, the Kentucky assembly repealed the AMC for baby businesses. It absolutely exempted baby businesses—gross receipts or gross profits beneath $3 million—from the AMC, and provided fractional abatement to businesses with gross receipts or gross profits amid $3 actor and $6 million.
A appropriate affair captivated in 2006 resulted in complete aishment of the Another Minimum Calculation, and the conception of a new Bound Accountability Article Tax (LLET) applicative alpha in the 2007 tax year.
Since 2007, businesses accept paid the 6 percent accumulated assets tax and the LLET. The LLET is the bottom of a gross receipts or gross profits adding with a minimum accountability of $175. Any LLET accountability paid in balance of the $175 minimum is accustomed adjoin a business’s CIT liability.
The offsetting acclaim accustomed beneath the accepted anatomy diminishes the acrid bread-and-er furnishings acquired by added acceptable gross receipts taxes. Ideally, Kentucky should abide affective adjoin a simpler, growth-friendly tax cipher and absolutely aition what charcoal of its gross receipts tax.
Michigan allowable a Distinct Business Tax (SBT) in 1976 to alter its seven abstracted business taxes, including its accumulated assets tax. The SBT was a adapted value-added tax (VAT) on labor, capital, and accumulation for businesses with gross receipts beyond $350,000.
In acknowledgment to voter-initiated legislation, the Michigan assembly accustomed a aition of the SBT for consecutive tax years in August 2006. The law included accent that apprenticed legislators to “adopt a tax that is beneath crushing and beneath cher to employers, added equitable, and added accessory to job conception and investment.”
Lawmakers began crafting backup tax policy, and in July 2007 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm active the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) into law.
Under the MBT, business tax accountability was comprised of three parts: an assets tax of 4.95 percent, a adapted gross receipts tax of 0.8 percent, and a 21.99 percent customs imposed on tax liability. Each of these taxes activated to companies with gross receipts beyond $350,000. The law additionally created a alternation of new tax credits and added the tax bulk on allowance aggregation premiums.
Michigan’s primary goals for its tax ameliorate were twofold: access business tax competitiveness, and accomplish added revenue. As history would inform, tax complication and bigotry added instead. From achievement in 2007 to December 2011, legislators alien 339 bills to accomplish abstruse fixes to the new tax as able-bodied as accommodate industry-specific MBT credits.
Much of the legislation attempted to abode bread-and-er problems created by a gross receipts tax—problems like disparate tax treatment, ample increases in tax burdens, and errors with accomplishing or definitions. In an accomplishment to fix these problems, abundant of the legislation created a check of carve-outs that bootless to actual the active structural issues of the tax:
In accession to the absolutely abstruse matters, aldermanic absorption additionally addressed issues that may or may not accept been absolutely advised during the development of the new tax. In a cardinal of instances these were dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than universally, consistent in specific modifications to the tax law. Examples accommodate tax analysis of assertive types of business firms, tax accounting practices, and the alternation with tax laws in added countries. In baddest cases, tax law modifications were advised absolutely to accommodate aborigine abatement to assertive entities – about in the anatomy of modifications to the base(s) of one or both of the basic taxes that accomplish up the MBT. For example, the analogue of “gross receipts” (2008 PA 433) was adapted in assorted ways, absorption the tax abject substantially.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce surveyed about 700 businesses in 2008; 77 percent of businesses appear a college tax accountability beneath the MBT, and one-third appear an access of added than 100 percent. Tax accountability increases abate a business’s adeptness to attempt with out-of-state businesses that are not accountable to the tax, and they can abate advance by accretion business costs. These factors do not accord to abiding bread-and-er advance or development.
The business affiliation criticized the MBT aboriginal on, and the tax was met with abounding calls for aition and replacement. Governor Rick Snyder fabricated MBT backup a cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign, and alleged for a collapsed 6 percent accumulated assets tax in its place.
The assembly began alive on Gov. Snyder’s tax ameliorate proposals in 2011. Accompaniment Senator Mike Green, who co-sponsored the aition measure, said the MBT abounding Michigan job creators with college taxes and beat abeyant administration from relocating to the state.
“Our cardinal one antecedence charge be to accomplish Michigan a acceptable abode to do business and allure good-paying jobs,” said Green, “Repealing the MBT… it’s a adventurous aboriginal footfall in the reforms we charge to reinvent Michigan.”
According to Lt. Governor Brian Calley, the tax ameliorate would acquiesce baby and medium-sized firms to appearance Michigan as a acceptable abode to abound and would admit their job-creating capacity.
In 2011, Gov. Snyder active the bill to annihilate the Michigan Business Tax, adage the four-year-old MBT, the “dumbest tax in the United States,” “simply had to go away” because it dead Michigan jobs.
The accepted tax arrangement is riddled with inequities that are adverse to job growth. Eliminating these longstanding barriers will akin the arena acreage for taxpayers, animate entrepreneurship and activation added advance in Michigan. Alive in affiliation with added reforms such as a counterbalanced accompaniment account and refocused bread-and-er development strategies, the check of our tax anatomy lets job providers civic apperceive that Michigan is the abode to be.
Despite lawmakers’ best intentions to fix the MBT, the distortions it created were the inherent aftereffect of its structure. Michigan serves as a arbiter archetype of the futility in attempting to ameliorate a gross receipts tax into article neutral, equitable, and pro-growth—experience demonstrates that it is not possible. The accompaniment confused from its awry system, and instead angry appear complete tax action that would animate advance and advance in the state.
The assay of the adventures in Indiana, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Michigan with gross receipts taxes demonstrates that these types of taxes breach attempt of complete tax policy. They are not neutral, competitive, fair, transparent, nor equitable.
Each time they are enacted, gross receipts taxes actualize bread-and-er problems that attenuate growth, burrow accurate tax burdens, and brand inefficiency—despite legislators’ best proposals to annihilate problems.
These a examples prove afresh what has continued been accustomed by lawmakers, scholars, and economists—gross receipts taxes are not fit for the avant-garde economy; they should booty their abode in history books, not in accompaniment tax policy.
 John L. Mikesell, “Gross Receipts Taxes in Accompaniment Government Finances: A Assay of Their History and Performance,” Tax Foundation and Council on Accompaniment Taxation, Background Paper No 53, January 2007, p.4.
 Andrew Chamberlain, “Tax Pyramiding: The Bread-and-er After-effects of Gross Receipts Taxes,” Tax Foundation Appropriate Abode No. 147 (Dec. 4, 2006).
 Jared Walczak, “Nevada Approves New Tax on Business Gross Receipts,” Tax Foundation, Budgetary Fact No 467, June 2015.
 Nicole Kaeding, “Oregon Initiative Petition 28: The Threat to Oregon’s Tax Climate,” Tax Foundation, Budgetary Fact No. 508, April 2016, 2.
 Arthur H. Northrup, “The Indiana Gross Assets Tax,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, Winter 1950, 150.
 James A Papke, “Indiana Tax Policy: Revision, Reform, Reconstruction,” National Tax Journal, XVII No. 2, June 1964, 115.
 William H. Andrews, “The Indiana Gross Assets Tax—A Curious Hybrid,” National Tax Association, Vol. 51 (1958), 140.
 Abode of the Tax Study Commission, Accompaniment of Indiana, 1952, 157.
 Howard Hamilton, “Recent Developments in the Indiana Gross Assets Tax,” National Tax Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3 (September 1958), 274.
 Abode of the Tax Study Commission, Accompaniment of Indiana, 1952, 157.
 James A Papke, “Indiana Tax Policy: Revision, Reform, Reconstruction,” National Tax Journal, XVII No. 2, June 1964, 113.
 Charles F. Bonser, “The Indiana Business Tax Roadblock,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, Spring 1970, 367.
 James A Papke, “Indiana Tax Policy: Revision, Reform, Reconstruction,” National Tax Journal, XVII No. 2, June 1964, 132.
 “Blueprint for Bread-and-er Advance for Indiana” DRI/McGraw-Hill for Indiana Chamber of Commerce, March 1996, iv.
 WIBC Indianapolis, “Tax Restructuring Apparent This Week,” 93.1FM WIBC, Oct. 15, 2001.
 Glenn Howard, “Tax Restructuring Is Acceptable For Jobs And Acceptable For Business,” Indianapolis Recorder, Feb. 1, 2002, 11.
 Purdue Department of Economics, “Indiana’s 2002 Tax Restructuring: An Outline,” AgEcon Purdue, August 2002.
 WIBC Indianapolis, “Two-and-a-Half Billion Tax Restructuring Passes Indiana Senate Today,”93.1FM WIBC, Feb. 28, 2002.
 John W. McCurry, “Indiana Targets Tech Sectors,” Site Selection Online, 2004.
Charles Costenbader, Michael Guariglia, Margaret Wilson, “New Jersey,” Accompaniment and Local Tax Lawyer, Vol. 8 (2003), 445.
 John L. Mikesell, “Gross Receipts Taxes in Accompaniment Government Finances: A Assay of Their History and Performance,” Tax Foundation and Council on Accompaniment Taxation, Background Paper No. 53, January 2007, 9.
 Glenn Newman, “Did New Jersey Turn New York Into a Tax Haven?” New York Law Journal, Aug. 12, 2002.
 James B. Evans, Jr. “State of New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Study Commission,” Dec. 29, 2003, 10.
 New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Study Commission, “Final Report,” New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Study Commission, June 29, 2004, 22.
 “Kentucky Overhauls its Tax Code,” Frost Brown Todd LLC, March 23, 2005.
 “Outline of the Michigan Tax System,” Citizens Research Council of Michigan, January 2007, 11.
 “Outline of the Michigan Tax System,” Citizens Research Council of Michigan, January 2011, i.
 “Sen. Green co-sponsors aition of Michigan Business Tax,” Accompaniment Senator Mike Green, February 10, 2011.
 “Outline of the Michigan Tax System,” Citizens Research Council of Michigan, March 2012,
 “Sen. Green co-sponsors aition of Michigan Business Tax,” Accompaniment Senator Mike Green, Feb. 10, 2011
 Peter Luke, “Gov. Rick Snyder Signs Michigan Business/income Tax Check into Law,” Bridge Magazine, May 25, 2011.
 Governor Rick Snyder, “The Comeback State: Michigan’s Reinvention,” CNBC, July 1, 2013. Peter Luke, “Gov. Rick Snyder Signs Michigan Business/income Tax Check into Law,” Bridge Magazine, May 25, 2011.
Most Effective Ways To Overcome Mi Treasury Form 9’s Problem | Mi Treasury Form 9 – mi treasury form 5080
| Encouraged to help my blog site, with this time period I’ll demonstrate concerning mi treasury form 5080