Economic development: other; income tax act of 1967; amend to reflect elimination of the Michigan strategic fund. Amends secs. 51f, 266a, 270, 278, 676, 680, 696, 701, 711, 713 & 718 of 1967 PA 281 (MCL 206.51f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0631'25
SB 647 is a technical and conforming amendment to Michigan’s Income Tax Act that updates multiple provisions to reflect the elimination of the Michigan Strategic Fund and the transfer of its functions to the newly named Bureau of Fair Competition and Free Enterprise. The bill revises references in several tax-credit and reporting sections so that administration, certification, reporting, and rulemaking authority are assigned to the new bureau or otherwise aligned with the reorganized economic development structure. It also makes related wording and cross-reference corrections throughout the act.
Substantively, the bill preserves and restates existing tax-credit programs rather than creating new ones. It continues the historic rehabilitation income tax credits in sections 266a and 676, the early-stage venture investment credit in section 278, the use of tax voucher certificates in section 270, the revitalization and placemaking fund in section 696, and reporting requirements for new jobs training and research and development credits in sections 711, 713, and 718. The historic rehabilitation credits remain capped at 25% of qualified expenditures, subject to annual reservation limits, preapproval procedures, assignment rules, recapture provisions, and reporting requirements. The bill also maintains the existing eligibility rules and administrative framework for these credits, while substituting the new bureau for the Michigan Strategic Fund where appropriate.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily organizational and administrative. It amends the Income Tax Act to ensure that tax incentives tied to economic development, historic preservation, and workforce programs continue to operate after the state’s economic development governance changes. It preserves the legal structure for taxpayers, historic property owners, investors, community colleges, and businesses that participate in these programs, while shifting oversight and reporting references to the new state entity. The bill is tie-barred to SB 631, meaning it would not take effect unless that related bill is enacted.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and context is neutral and procedural. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no evidence of public controversy in the available materials. The bill appears intended to be a housekeeping measure that keeps existing tax incentive programs functioning during a broader administrative reorganization, rather than a policy change aimed at expanding or reducing the underlying credits.
The main point of potential contention is not the tax-credit policy itself, but the broader government reorganization that the bill depends on. Any disagreement would likely center on the elimination of the Michigan Strategic Fund, the transfer of authority to the new bureau, and whether the new administrative structure will preserve continuity and accountability for economic development programs. The bill also retains significant tax expenditures and reporting obligations, which could draw scrutiny from those concerned about fiscal cost, program effectiveness, or the complexity of Michigan’s incentive system.
SB 647 amends the Income Tax Act to replace references to the Michigan Strategic Fund with the Bureau of Fair Competition and Free Enterprise and to conform related tax-credit, withholding, fund, and reporting provisions to that reorganization. It preserves existing historic preservation credits, venture investment credits, voucher usage rules, revitalization and placemaking funding, and annual reporting requirements, while shifting administrative and oversight references to the new entity. The bill does not appear to change the substantive eligibility or value of the credits, but it updates the legal framework under which they are administered.
The available record suggests a largely neutral, technical, and administrative posture toward the bill. No committee testimony or roll-call votes are provided, so there is no documented opposition or support in the materials beyond the bill’s apparent purpose of conforming tax law to a separate organizational change. The measure reads as a continuity bill intended to prevent disruption in existing programs during the transition from the Michigan Strategic Fund to the new bureau.
The likely point of contention is the broader reorganization that SB 647 implements by reference. Stakeholders who rely on the Michigan Strategic Fund’s existing role in tax-credit administration may be concerned about how authority, expertise, and accountability will transfer to the new bureau. More generally, the bill preserves several tax expenditures and incentive programs, so fiscal conservatives or critics of targeted tax credits could question the cost and effectiveness of the programs, but no specific opposition is shown in the provided materials.