Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – July 15, 2022

  1. Supreme Court Ruling Shouldn’t Affect Michigan’s Healthy Climate Plan

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants should not affect Michigan’s course of following through with the MI Healthy Climate Plan, which was first released in April 2021. The MI Healthy Climate plan seeks interim reductions of 28% by 2025 and 52% by 2030.

Why it Matters: Businesses should continue to plan for the implementation of the MI Healthy Climate plan and other regulations as the state continues to shift towards the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050. If you have environmental issues with state and/or federal agencies, contact our environmental attorneys.

———

  1. Several Groups Send Letter to LARA Seeking Adoption of International Energy Standards

Several groups have sent the department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs seeking them to adopt a set of international energy standards for residential and commercial buildings in preparation of electric vehicle charging and to help reduce climate impact.

Why it Matters: Including reducing climate impact, the groups have touted hundreds of dollars in energy cost savings for Michigan residents with the adoption of the new standards. “These provisions will lower costs for Michigan residents and businesses, increase household resilience from extreme weather events, and help reduce climate impacts from the building sector,” the groups wrote.

———

  1. Tax Reform Goals Priority for New “Fund MI Future” Coalition

A collection of 20 organizations have formed a newly created coalition with the aim of better funding Michigan’s public services with changes to the state’s tax policy. Following the release of Michigan’s next annual budget, the group plans to revise the state’s tax system and close tax loopholes so that wealthy individuals and organizations will now “pay what they owe” to support clean water access, job funding, and school support.

Why it Matters: If the new coalition’s plans for altering the state’s tax policy succeeds, organizations and wealthy individuals are expected to have higher tax bills.

———

  1. Mixed Signals in Michigan Marijuana Sales Data

One the one hand, the Michigan legal marijuana industry is booming. Sales in Michigan hit $1.03 billion in the first half of 2022, up by 26.9% from the same period last year, according to the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency (“MMRA”). A Detroit News article reported that Michigan has become the third largest marijuana market in the country. On the other hand, not all news is rosy in the industry. There are now more than 1,000 licensed marijuana retailers in Michigan, and while sales numbers are at all-time highs, the competition in the state is driving down prices. MMRA reported that the average price for flower at $1959 per pound in June, down 41.6% from the same period in 2021.

Why it Matters: With inflation surging across the economy, falling prices in the marijuana industry mean that profits may be hard to come by. This may lead to more consolidation within the industry as operators and investors seek to achieve economies of scale.

———

  1. Bipartisan Bills Would Allow Alcohol Sales at Some College Sporting Events in Michigan

New bipartisan bills in the Michigan Legislature would allow alcohol sales at college basketball, football and hockey games. House Bill 6289 and Senate Bill 1125 would allow the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to issue licenses to be used for events within the public areas of university football, basketball and hockey stadiums. Sales would be permitted two hours before and after each game.

Why it Matters: Sponsors of the bills point to data showing that allowing alcoholic beverages in venues during sporting events lowers the probability of excessive alcohol consumption that might otherwise happen during tailgating before a game or if alcohol is snuck into a stadium.


Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Environmental Law | Michael Perry

Business & Tax| Ed Castellani

Taxation | Paul McCord

Cannabis | Klint Kesto

Energy, Utilities & Telecommunication | Michael Ashton

Client Alert: Tax Reform Causes Some Employers to Put Transportation Plans in Park

Employee Benefits and Healthcare LawTax Reform Causes Some Employers to Put Transportation Plans in Park

Prior to 2018, it was commonplace for employers to provide qualified transportation fringe benefit plans, in part, to pay for or reimburse employees for costs associated with transit passes, commuter highway vehicles, carpools, or qualified parking. The benefit was not taxable to the employee and was deductible by the employer.

However, pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the employer deduction is no longer allowed effective 2018. The TCJA (formally called the “Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018”), amended Internal Revenue Code Section 274 to deny any deduction for “the expense of any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in Code Section 132(f)) provided to an employee of the taxpayer”. See Code Section 274(a)(4). It also added Code Section 274(f) which specifically states:

No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for any expense incurred for providing any transportation, or any payment or reimbursement, to an employee of the taxpayer in connection with travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment, except as necessary for ensuring the safety of the employee.

Moreover, Publication 15-B for 2018: Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits confirms that no deduction is allowed for qualified transportation benefits incurred or paid after December 31, 2017, whether provided directly by the employer, through a bona fide reimbursement arrangement, or through a compensation reduction agreement. This prohibition on deductions includes any expense incurred for providing any transportation, or paying or reimbursing employees, for travel between the employees’ home and work (except for safety reasons). However, any such employer payments may be excluded from the employees’ wages.

Clearly, employers who had been subsidizing parking and transportation related expenses will no longer be able to deduct those expenses. Some commentary contemplates that by making such benefits taxable to the employee, possibly the employer would be allowed to deduct the expenses. Code Section 274(e)(2) does create an exception to Code 274(a)’s no deduction rule for expenses treated as compensation; however, this provision within Code Section 274(e) only applies to entertainment, amusement, or recreation… it was not amended to include transportation. Further guidance on this would be appreciated.

While some employers will continue to provide transportation fringe benefits to remain competitive, others are scaling back to eliminate subsidized parking and/or requiring employees to pay such expenses on a pre-tax basis through a qualifying transportation expense reimbursement arrangement.

Other Fringe Benefits

TCJA affects other fringe benefits as well. Subject to certain requirements and exceptions, effective 2018, deductions are generally eliminated for on-site premises athletic facilities; club dues and membership; entertainment, amusement and recreation; meals, food and beverages; and moving expenses.

Exempt Organizations

Finally, tax-exempt entities are also affected as they will now be taxed on the value of the transportation fringe benefits (either payment towards the benefit or the cost of an employer owned parking facility) by treating funds used to pay for these benefits as unrelated taxable income.

As mentioned above, the TCJA amended the employer deduction rules under Code Section 274 pertaining to the deduction of certain expenses for entertainment, amusement, or recreation and certain membership dues. While the elimination of the employer deduction for these expenses does not directly impact an exempt organization, the TCJA also amended Code Section 512(a) to provide that an exempt organization’s unrelated business taxable income is increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under Code Section 274 and which is paid or incurred by the organization for any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in Code Section 132(f)), any parking facility used in connection with qualifying parking (as defined in Code Section 132(f)(5)(C), or any on-premises athletic facility (as defined in Code Section(j)(4)(B)). Accordingly, beginning in 2018, the amount an exempt organization pays for qualified transportation fringes, qualified parking, or on-premise athletic facilities will give rise to unrelated business taxable income.

Feel free to contact us for questions or further information on how the TCJA affects you and your business.


Elizabeth H. Latchana, Attorney Fraser TrebilcockElizabeth H. Latchana specializes in employee health and welfare benefits. Recognized for her outstanding legal work, in both 2018 and 2015, Beth was selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in Lansing for Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law by Best Lawyers, and in 2017 as one of the Top 30 “Women in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Contact her for more information on this reminder or other matters at 517.377.0826 or elatchana@fraserlawfirm.com.

Spousal Support Deduction: Breaking Up is Hard[er] to Do After Tax Reform

Divorce, Marriage, LawThe final version of the tax reform bill was released Friday, December 15, 2017 and is set for votes this week – and it will pass and become law. Among the many changes, the final bill eliminates the tax deduction for spousal support or alimony payments.

In Michigan, the concept of alimony – the legal obligation imposed on a person to provide financial support to their spouse after marital separation or divorce – is called spousal support. Spousal support, unlike child support, is not based on a formula that dictates whether one spouse will receive and the other will have to pay support at a set amount. Spousal support is decided on a case-by-case basis and is often the product of negotiation embodied in a divorce settlement agreement. If one of the parties asks for spousal support and they cannot agree, spousal support can also be ordered by the judge based on a number of factors.

Right now, spousal support payments are tax deductible by the payer, and they’re taxed like regular income to the recipient. Since the recipient typically makes less money – and is accordingly in a lower tax bracket – this tax treatment tends to keep more money in the former family unit and away from Uncle Sam. According to the IRS, about 600,000 Americans claimed an alimony deduction on their 2015 tax returns, the most recent year for which data is available.

Under the final Bill, for any divorce or separation agreement signed after December 31, 2018, or signed before that date but modified after it (if the modification expressly provides that the new amendments apply), spousal  support payments are not deductible by the payor spouse and are not included in the income of the recipient spouse. Rather, income used for spousal support will be taxed at the (generally higher rates) rates applicable to the payer spouse.

The new law generally won’t affect anyone already paying spousal support, but it will mean couples and their attorneys will need to change their thinking for divorce proceedings in the years ahead. This include existing divorces where spousal support was court ordered which, unlike where the parties come to an agreement, spousal support is modifiable. With  the loss of the existing tax treatment, post effective December 31, 2018, motions to modify spousal support could become much more contentious and expensive for both parties. This is because the new law has shifted the incentives for the parties, as the tax burden by the payor spouse increases by the amount of their marginal tax rate, whereas the tax drag on the recipient spouse decreases accordingly. For couples currently in divorce negotiations or under an existing arrangement where future spousal support is modifiable, couples and their attorneys should consider adding potential alternate language in their spousal support provisions to address the specific desired tax treatment.

It’s not just future divorces that will be affected by this change in the tax law. Couples and their attorney’s working out prenuptial agreements should take notice. Prenuptial — and postnuptial — agreements typically contain clauses that outline what spousal support would look like should the couple get divorced. Until this point, those clauses have typically been drafted assuming the alimony tax deduction will be in place. Eliminating the spousal support tax deduction may also have spillover implications, complicating how property settlements are reached. This could make some divorce settlements a bit more difficult to achieve.

Wealthy individuals can usually afford higher taxes on spousal support payments although the change in the tax law will affect the negotiating dynamics. However, individuals with more limited means where $500 or $700 dollar per month is going to make a big difference in day-to-day living are going to be more adversely affected by the change.


Fraser Trebilcock attorney Paul V. McCord has more than 20 years of tax litigation experience, including serving as a clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and as a judge of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Paul has represented clients before the IRS, Michigan Department of Treasury, other state revenue departments and local units of government. He can be contacted at 517.377.0861 or pmccord@fraserlawfirm.com.

A Look at The Senate Tax Reform Bill

Fraser Trebilcock continues to monitor the tax reform plans moving through the House and Senate.  As we mentioned in our last post, the various proposals are a bit of a moving target and are in at state of flux. On November 9, the Senate Finance Committee released its “policy highlights” outlining their goals for tax reform.  The Senate framework has many proposals which are similar to the House bill released on November 2, but it also has a number of significant differences. On November 13, the Senate Finance Committee began its markup of its version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a summary of which was released last Friday and summarized below. Members of the senate Finance Committee have thus far filed 355 amendments.

Meanwhile the House Ways and Means Committee voted out its markup which makes a number of changes to the House Bill originally introduced.  The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, November 15, on that version of the House Bill approved by the Ways and Means Committee.  A floor vote is expected on Thursday, November 16.

The Senate anticipating to vote on their version as early as the week following Thanksgiving. After that, it is expected that the bills will head to a marathon conference in the first two weeks of December with at vote in both houses by the third week of December with final legislation being presented to the President’s signature by Christmas.  Below is a summary of the Senate Bill, with the differences noted between the completing bills noted appropriately.

Individual Provision

  • New individual income tax rates. The Senate plan provides a reformed tax rate structure of 6 rates verse the 4 in the House Bill. The Senate plan maintains the 10% bracket and provides a 38.5% bracket for high-income earners.
  • Standard deduction increased. The Senate plan would increase the standard deduction to $24,000 for joint returns and surviving spouses, $18,000 for single parents, and $12,000 for individuals. This is up from $12,700, $9,300, and $6,350 under current law.
  • Child tax credit. The Senate plan would expand the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,650 and substantially lift existing caps.
  • State and local tax deduction. The Senate plan would repeal in full the deduction for State and local taxes. The House plan, in contrast, retains the state and local property tax deduction up to $10,000.
  • Retained credits & deductions. The Senate plan retains many current law provisions that have been potentially targeted for repeal in the House bill, including:
    • the child and dependent care credit;
    • the adoption credit (although this has been restored);
    • the deduction for charitable contributions;
    • the deduction for medical expenses;
    • the enhanced standard deduction for the blind and elderly;
    • provisions that provide “education relief for graduate students”;
    • the home mortgage interest deduction, preserved for existing mortgages and maintained for newly purchased homes up to $1 million;
    • the earned income tax credit; and
    • retirement savings programs including 401(k)s and IRAs.
  • Alternative minimum tax. Like the House plan, the Senate plan proposes to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  • Estate tax. Unlike the House bill, the estate tax itself would not be repealed but instead, the current exemption would be doubled.

Business Provisions

  • New corporate tax rate. The Senate plan would permanently lower the corporate tax rate to 20%. However, unlike the House bill, this reduction reportedly wouldn’t go into effect until 2019.
  • Deduction for pass-through businesses. The Senate plan would establish a “simple and easy-to-administer deduction for pass-through businesses of all sizes.”
  • Expensing. The Senate plan would allow for full and immediate expensing of new equipment. Unlike the House bill, which generally allowed for full expensing for five years, this provision would be permanent.
  • Enhanced cash accounting. Under the Senate plan, more businesses would be allowed to use the cash-basis accounting method.
  • Retained credits and deductions. The Senate plan would retain many current law provisions that have been potentially targeted for repeal, including:
    • the low-income housing credit;
    • the research and development credit; and
    • the interest deduction for “Main Street employers.”

International Provisions

  • Shift to territorial system. The Senate plan would eliminate the current “worldwide” system of U.S. taxation and change to a territorial system.
  • Repatriation. The Senate plan would eliminate the “lock-out effect” by making it “simpler and less onerous for American multinationals to bring foreign earnings back to America.”

Also yesterday the House Ways and Means Committee reported out it’s Bill after amendments. The changes bring the cost of the legislation down to the $1.5 trillion revenue loss that was agreed to in the budget. Among the key changes are:

Individual Provisions

  • New rate for certain small business income. The original Bill contained a new 25% maximum rate on business income of individuals who are active partners or S corporation shareholders. This provision has now been eliminated.  The amended Bill now provides a new a 9% tax rate, in lieu of the ordinary 12% tax rate, for the first $75,000 ($37,500 for single filers and $56,250 for heads of household filers) in net business taxable income of an active owner or shareholder earning less than $150,000 in taxable income ($75,00 for single filers and $112,500 for heads of household filers) through a pass-through business, such as an LLC or S corporation. This new 9% rate is to be phased in over five years.
  • Restores and preserves the adoption credit.
  • Moving expenses deduction for service members. The amended Bill preserves the above-the-line deduction for moving expenses of a member of the Armed Forces on active duty.
  • Certain rollover from 529 plans. Rollovers between qualified tuition programs and ABLE programs (ABLE Accounts, which are tax-advantaged savings accounts for individuals with disabilities and their families). This new provision would allow rollovers from section 529 plans to ABLE programs.

Business Provisions

  • Limitation on lowered corporate tax rate. The original House bill provided for lower corporate tax rates. This amendment lowers the 80% dividends received deduction to 65% and the 70% dividends received deduction to 50%, and thus preserves the higher current law effective tax rates on income from such dividends.
  • Easing of limit on reduction of business interest. Under the original House Bill, every business was to be subject to a disallowance of a deduction for net interest expense in excess of 30% of the business’s adjusted taxable income. That provision has been eased for taxpayers that paid or accrued interest on “floor plan financing indebtedness”.
  • Modification of treatment of S corporation conversions into C corporations. This new provision provides that distributions from an “eligible terminated S corporation” would be treated as paid from its accumulated adjustments account and from its earnings and profits on a pro-rata basis.
  • Amortization of certain research and experimentation expenditures. The amended Bill provides that certain research or experimental expenditures are required to be capitalized and amortized over a 5-year period (15 years in the case of expenditures attributable to research conducted outside the U.S.).
  • Preserves the current rules regarding nonqualified deferred compensation. The original House Bill tightened up rules regarding nonqualified deferred compensation. The Bill reported out yesterday strikes this provision, so that the current-law tax treatment of nonqualified deferred compensation is preserved.
  • Change in the treatment of restricted stock units. The House bill, would have given certain employees of nonpublic companies who receive stock options or restricted stock, an election to defer income recognition for up to five years. As amended, restricted stock units are not eligible section 83 treatment except as provided in new section 83(i).

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Paul V. McCord has more than 20 years of tax litigation experience, including serving as a clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and as a judge of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Paul has represented clients before the IRS, Michigan Department of Treasury, other state revenue departments and local units of government. He can be contacted at 517.377.0861 or pmccord@fraserlawfirm.com.

House Tax Reform Bill: A Look at How It Breaks Down

UPDATE: (November 14, 2017) A Look at The Senate Tax Reform Bill

 

On November 2, 2017, House Ways and Means Committee introduced the much anticipated House Tax Reform Bill – The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The bill is 429 pages, so it will take some time to completely digest and analyze all of the provisions. The scope of the proposed changes is very broad and the task is more difficult as various provisions are a moving target, since the House Ways and Means Committee’s markup began Monday, November 6th. The Senate Finance Committee, the Senate counterpart to the House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to release its version of the tax bill the week of Nov. 13th. The Administration has expressed its desire to sign tax legislation by Christmas.

If the Bill becomes law, it will mark the most significant change to the Tax Code in over 30 years. The bill generally would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Here is an overview of key provisions:

Business Provisions

  • Corporate tax rate. Lowers the corporate tax rate to 20% – down from 35%
  • Pass-through rate. Sets a top 25% rate for owners who are active participants in pass-through businesses such as sole-proprietorships, S corporations and partnerships. The plan includes complicated guardrails that limit people from turning what would otherwise be wage income taxed at up to 39.6% into business income taxed at a lower rate (presumptively set at 30% — 0% for service-related businesses) of their business income.
  • Immediate expensing of business investment. Allows businesses to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment instead of depreciating it over a number of years.
  • Net Operating Losses. Establishes an indefinite carryforward (and no carryback) for net operating losses (“NOL”) but also caps the NOL deduction at an amount equal to 90% of taxable income (as computed without the NOL deduction).
  • LITC. Retains the low-income housing tax credit.
  • R&D. Preserves the Research & Development Tax Credit.
  • Interest deduction. Limits the business interest expense deduction, capping it at 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which is a measure of cash flow. Real estate firms and small businesses would be exempt from that limit.
  • Limits executive compensation deduction. Publicly traded businesses would lose the ability to deduct certain executive compensation above $1 million, which they can now do for performance-based pay.
  • Nonqualified Deferred Compensation. Nonqualified deferred compensation, stock options, and stock appreciation rights would be subject to immediate taxation upon “vesting,” which (in many cases) might also be triggered more quickly.
  • Limits like-kind exchanges. Limits §1031 like-kind property exchanges to real propert
  • Repeals the following:
    • Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax
    • Entertainment expense and certain fringe benefits deductions
    • Technical terminations of partnerships
    • New market tax credit
    • Exclusion from income of §118 contributions to capital

International Provisions

  • Repatriation tax rate. Creates a one-time 12% tax on offshore earnings held as cash or cash equivalents and a 5% tax on noncash assets, payable over up to eight years, whether or not the earnings are repatriated.
  • Controlled Foreign Corporations. Creates a new 10% tax on US companies’ high-profit foreign subsidiaries, calculated on a global basis.
  • Territorial Tax System. Establishes territorial taxation with a 100% exemption for domestic corporations on dividends from certain foreign subsidiaries.

Tax-Exempt Entities

  • Sports stadium financing. Eliminates tax-exempt bond treatment for professional stadiums.
  • Executive Compensation. Establishes 20% excise tax on compensation paid in excess of $1 million to an executive of a tax-exempt organization.
  • Excise tax on private college endowments. Imposes a 1.4% excise tax on net investment income of private colleges and universities if the aggregate fair market value of assets is at least $100,000 per student.
  • Permissible political activity. Establishes rule that churches and religious organizations will not lose exempt status or be deemed to have intervened in any political campaign on behalf of a candidate as a result of the content of any sermon, teaching or presentation.

Individual Provisions

  • Reduces the number of individual tax rates as follows:
    • 12%: Applies to incomes from $0 up to $45,000 for individuals and $90,000 for couples.
    • 25%: Applies to incomes up to $200,000 for individuals and $260,000 for couples.
    • 35%: Applies to incomes up to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples.
    • For single parents that are heads of households, the thresholds would be the midpoint between individuals and joint filers, except for the highest bracket which would still kick in at $500,000.
    • 39.6%: Applies to incomes over $500,000 for individuals and couples making more than $1 million a year.
  • A larger standard deduction. The standard deduction for all taxes would increase to $12,000 for individuals (up from $6,350) and $24,000 for couples (up from $12,700). The benefit is offset, however, since the Bill eliminates the personal exemption and various secondary deductions.
  • Expands child tax credit. The Bill proposes to increase the child tax credit to $1,600, up from $1,000, for any child under 17. But the Bill also limits the refundability of this credit. The $600 increase in the credit is, however, not refundable. Further, the Bill will let more people claim the child tax credit. The income level where the credit starts to be phased out is increased to $115,000 for single parents, up from $75,000 today, and to $230,000 for married parents, up from $110,000.
  • Creates two new family credits. The Bill would create two different $300 tax credits.
  • Credit for non-child dependents. Credit for nonchild dependents — for instance, any son or daughter over 17 whom you are supporting, an ailing elderly mother or an adult child with a disability. The credit is equal to $300 per individual.
  • Spousal Credit. A $300 credit for each spouse if they file jointly (or, in the case of single parents, the head of household).

These credits are in effect only for 5 years and would not be refundable.

  • Charitable contributions. The Bill continues the deduction for charitable contributions.
  • Retains the earned income tax credit. Provides tax relief for low-income Americans.
  • No changes to 401(k) plans. Retains retirement savings options such as 401(k)s and IRAs.
  • No repeal of Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
  • Limits the home-mortgage interest deduction. Retains the home mortgage interest deduction for existing mortgages but limits the home mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes for mortgages up $500,000.
  • SALT Deduction. Limits the state and local tax deduction to local property taxes up to $10,000 but eliminates the deduction for state income and sales taxes.
  • Patents and inventions. Adds patents and inventions to the list of assets that are not treated as capital assets.
  • Eliminates personal exemptions. The Bill eliminates the personal exemption of $4,050 for you, your spouse and each of your dependents.
  • Removes most personal itemized deductions. The only deduction preserved explicitly is for charitable gifts and edited home-mortgage interest and SALT deductions. Eliminated itemized deductions include:
    • Student-loan-interest deduction.
    • Medical expense deduction.
    • Moving expense deduction.
    • Alimony payments.
  • Repeals the adoption tax credit. Repeals the tax credit for adoption.
  • Eliminates the exclusion for dependent care assistance accounts. Some employers provide parents the opportunity to save up to $5,000 of their income in a dependent care flexible spending account. That money is excluded from the parent’s taxable income. The Bill would repeal that exclusion.
  • Removes the deductions for MSA’s. Deductions for contributions to Medical Savings Accounts (“MSAs”) and exclusion from income for contributions of employers to MSAs are eliminated under the Bill.
  • Repeals the estate tax. Under current law, the threshold for the tax, which applies only to estates with greater than $5.6 million in assets during 2018, would double to over $10 million. Then, the tax would be phased out after six years.

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Paul V. McCord has more than 20 years of tax litigation experience, including serving as a clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and as a judge of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Paul has represented clients before the IRS, Michigan Department of Treasury, other state revenue departments and local units of government. He can be contacted at 517.377.0861 or pmccord@fraserlawfirm.com.