Summary
interpreting state statute
Summary of this case from Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co.Opinion
Docket No. 158333 Docket No. 158335 Calendar No. 3
06-16-2020
TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.
Honigman LLP (by June Summers Haas and Daniel L. Stanley ) for plaintiff. Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Scott L. Damich and Randi M. Merchant, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC (by Clifford W. Taylor, Paul D. Hudson, and Michael C. Simoni ) for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, PC (by Paul V. McCord) for the Michigan Retailers Association, Amicus Curiae The Mike Cox Law Firm (by Jackie J. Cook ) for the Taxation Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Amicus Curiae
Honigman LLP (by June Summers Haas and Daniel L. Stanley ) for plaintiff.
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Scott L. Damich and Randi M. Merchant, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC (by Clifford W. Taylor, Paul D. Hudson, and Michael C. Simoni ) for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae
Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, PC (by Paul V. McCord) for the Michigan Retailers Association, Amicus Curiae
The Mike Cox Law Firm (by Jackie J. Cook ) for the Taxation Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Amicus Curiae
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
Viviano, J. At issue is whether plaintiff TOMRA of North America, Inc.’s container-recycling machines and repair parts are excluded as a matter of law from qualifying for the industrial-processing-activity exemptions under MCL 205.54t of the General Sales Tax Act (GSTA), MCL 205.51 et seq. , and MCL 205.94o of the Use Tax Act (UTA), MCL 205.91 et seq. Specifically, we must determine whether the temporal limitation specified in the general statutory definition of "industrial processing," MCL 205.54t(7)(a) ; MCL 205.94o(7)(a), applies to the enumerated list of "industrial processing" activities in MCL 205.54t(3) and MCL 205.94o(3), respectively. To answer this question, we first clarify that because the statutes are unambiguous, the interpretive principle that tax exemptions are strictly construed is inapplicable to this case. Under the proper interpretive standards, we hold that the temporal limitation in MCL 205.54t(7)(a) and MCL 205.94o(7)(a) does not apply to the activities listed in MCL 205.54t(3) and MCL 205.94o(3), respectively.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TOMRA sells and leases reverse-vending machines, the bottle- and can-recycling machines commonly found in grocery stores used to help retailers comply with Michigan's bottle-deposit law, MCL 445.571 et seq. The company also sells repair parts for the machines. The machines sort the bottles and cans, which are then placed in bins and brought to a recycling facility. The facility then sells the bottles and cans to manufacturers who use the materials in other products.
TOMRA claimed that its machines were exempt from both the GSTA and the UTA under each act's industrial-processing exemption. After an audit by defendant, the Department of Treasury, TOMRA sought a determination from the Court of Claims that its machines fall within the industrial-processing exemptions. In granting summary disposition to the department, the Court of Claims found that the tasks that TOMRA's machines perform occur before the industrial process begins; therefore, TOMRA could not avail itself of the industrial-processing exemptions. The Court of Claims reasoned that the activities listed in MCL 205.54t(3) (establishing that industrial processing includes 11 enumerated activities) and MCL 205.94o(3) (same) are only industrial-processing activities when they occur between the start and end of the industrial process as defined by MCL 205.54t(7)(a) and MCL 205.94o(7)(a), respectively. The Court of Appeals, in a split, published decision, reversed the Court of Claims, declining to interpret MCL 205.54t(7)(a) and MCL 205.94o(7)(a) as placing a temporal requirement on the activities listed in MCL 205.54t(3) and MCL 205.94o(3), respectively. The Court explained, "The statute does not state that industrial processing must begin this way but rather states that when tangible personal property begins movement from raw-materials storage to begin industrial processing, one can rest assured that industrial processing has begun." The Court held that MCL 205.54t and MCL 205.94o do not preclude industrial processing from "occur[ring] without the initial step of moving raw materials from storage, or when tangible items are never in raw-materials storage," and reversed and remanded. Judge K. F. KELLY dissented, arguing that the temporal limitation applied to the activities listed in MCL 205.54t(3) and MCL 205.94o(3).
See MCL 205.54t ; MCL 205.94o.
TOMRA of North America, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury , 325 Mich. App. 289, 301, 926 N.W.2d 259 (2018).
Id.
Id. at 302-303, 926 N.W.2d 259.
Id. at 304, 926 N.W.2d 259 ( K. F. Kelly , J., dissenting).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"We review de novo a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition. Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs , 500 Mich. 362, 372, 902 N.W.2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
A. INTERPRETIVE STANDARDS
Before addressing the question presented in this case, we first take this opportunity to clarify the interpretive standards applicable to statutory tax exemptions. In every case requiring statutory interpretation, we seek to discern the ordinary meaning of the language in the context of the statute as a whole. But with regard to tax exemptions, the oft-repeated rule is that they must be strictly construed in favor of the government, i.e., against the finding of an exemption. Stated more fully, this canon of construction provides that " ‘[a]n intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of the State will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used ....’ " The Court of Appeals below referred to this commonly recited principle, and the department invokes it in this Court. We therefore must determine, at the outset, the canon's proper function.
Ally Fin. Inc. v. State Treasurer , 502 Mich. 484, 493, 918 N.W.2d 662 (2018).
See, e.g., Evanston Y.M.C.A. Camp v. State Tax Comm. , 369 Mich. 1, 7, 118 N.W.2d 818 (1962).
Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College , 322 Mich. 142, 148-149, 33 N.W.2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed.), § 672, p. 1403.
TOMRA , 325 Mich. App. at 296, 926 N.W.2d 259.
The preference against tax exemptions is a judicially created substantive canon, meaning that it is premised on certain policies or political objectives instead of its usefulness in uncovering a statute's ordinary meaning. In other words, it loads the dice in favor of one interpretation, not because that interpretation is more likely to be semantically correct but because it better serves policy objectives. The justification for the canon has long been tied to political theory. When it first appeared in our caselaw in 1854, the Court explained that tax exemptions were "construed strictly" because they were "in derogation of equal rights." "Equal rights" referred to the Jacksonian-era political doctrine—which found its way into the law in various capacities—that legislation favoring one class or group should be limited, if allowed at all. This rationale, in the context of taxes, has continued to buttress the canon in our cases. The canon does not, then, shed any light on whether the ordinary language of a statute enacted by the Legislature provides a tax exemption. Perhaps for this reason, our caselaw—especially in recent opinions—has also stressed that the canon cannot overcome the plain text, and in a few cases, we have not relied on or mentioned it at all. We take this opportunity to clarify that because the canon requiring strict construction of tax exemptions does not help reveal the semantic content of a statute, it is a canon of last resort. That is, courts should employ it only "when an act's language, after analysis and subjection to the ordinary rules of interpretation, presents ambiguity." In the present case, the canon is inapplicable because, as we explain below, the statutes are unambiguous: their ordinary meaning is discernible by reading the text in its immediate context and with the aid of appropriate canons of interpretation.
See generally Slocum, Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), p. 174 ("[S]ubstantive canons are judge created and represent a wide range of concerns that are relevant to the law" and that "are not tied to particular linguistic phenomena ...."); Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012), p. 362 ("But almost always, the only announced justification for the rule [of narrow construction] is to the effect that it is necessary to achieve the beneficial purposes of the law."); Posner, Statutory Interpretation—in the Classroom and in the Courtroom , 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 800, 807 (1983) ("But I know of no neutral, nonpolitical basis on which a judge can decide whether the legislature should be forced by some version of strict construction to legislate less ....").
Detroit Young Men's Society v. Detroit , 3 Mich. 172, 179 (1854). Earlier cases touched on the issue but did not make such a clear interpretive pronouncement. See Lefevre v. Detroit , 2 Mich. 586, 591 (1853) (noting, among other things, that the Legislature's inclusion of certain exempt properties suggested the exclusion of others); People v. Detroit & P. R. , 1 Mich. 458, 460 (1850) (noting that because the company's charter was silent regarding taxation, there was no exemption).
See Green v. Graves , 1 Doug. 351, 366-367 (Mich., 1844) (discussing "the doctrine of equal rights and equal privileges, so much cherished by the people," that militated against monopoly power or privilege); see also Gillman, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993), p. 7 (discussing the "Jacksonian ethos that emphasized equal rights and the dangers of legislating special privileges for particular groups and classes" instead of equal laws for the general public); Binney, Restrictions Upon Local and Special Legislation in State Constitutions (Philadelphia: Kay & Brother, 1894), p. 6 (discussing the "very general feeling of hostility to all local and special legislation" benefiting particular groups or areas and the legal restrictions that developed to stem this legislation); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (5th ed.), pp. 486-487 ("Equality of rights, privileges, and capacities unquestionably should be the aim of the law; and if special privileges are granted, or special burdens or restrictions imposed in any case, it must be presumed that the legislature designed to depart as little as possible from this fundamental maxim of government.... Special privileges are always obnoxious, and discriminations against persons or classes are still more so; and, as a rule of construction, it is to be presumed they were probably not contemplated or designed."); Rosen, Class Legislation, Public Choice, and the Structural Constitution , 21 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 181, 182-183 (1997) ("Jacksonian judges and treatise writers pointed to state due process, equal protection, and special legislation clauses to argue that states were not free to pass ‘special’ laws, or ‘class legislation,’ but had to legislate in the ‘public interest,’ or ‘for the purpose of benefiting the polity as a whole.’ ") (citation omitted); Schlesinger, Jr, The Age of Jackson (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1945), p. 316 ("The [Jacksonian] prescription of free enterprise thus became government action to destroy the ‘blighting influence of partial legislation, monopolies, congregated wealth, and interested combinations’ in the interests of the ‘natural order of society.’ ") (citation omitted); White, Foreword to Leggett, Democratick Editorials: Essays in Jacksonian Political Economy (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1984), pp. xvii-xviii ("The equal rights principle meant ... that the law may not discriminate among citizens, benefiting some at the expense of others. Few government programs could pass through this filter. Strict application of the equal rights principle thus led [its proponents] naturally to favor minimization of government powers. Every extension of the sphere of government action beyond the Jeffersonian night-watchman duties ... created a privileged aristocratic class at the expense of the productive laboring class.").
See, e.g., Wexford Med. Group v. City of Cadillac , 474 Mich. 192, 204, 713 N.W.2d 734 (2006) ("[B]ecause tax exemptions upset the desirable balance achieved by equal taxation, they must be narrowly construed."); Retirement Homes of Detroit Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Sylvan Twp. , 416 Mich. 340, 348, 330 N.W.2d 682 (1982) ("A property tax exemption is in derogation of the principle that all property shall bear a proportionate share of the tax burden and, consequently, a tax exemption will be strictly construed."); In re Smith Estate , 343 Mich. 291, 297, 72 N.W.2d 287 (1955) ("[O]ur point of departure in the interpretation of any taxing act is the consideration that a preference in or an exemption from taxation must be clearly defined and without ambiguity. Taxation, like rain, falls on all alike. True, there are, in any taxing act, certain exceptions, certain favored classes, who escape the yoke. But one claiming the unique and favored position must establish his right thereto beyond doubt or cavil."); cf. East Saginaw Mfg. Co. v. East Saginaw , 19 Mich. 259, 277-280 (1869) (finding no exemption and noting the danger that various classes, such as railroads or manufacturers, could seek perpetual exemptions from taxation and that strict construction was justified because a state should not lightly be taken to have given away its power to tax); 3A Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (8th ed., April 2020 update), § 66:9 ("This rule of strict construction derives from the same rationale supporting strict construction of positive revenue laws, that the burdens of taxation should be distributed equally and fairly among members of society.").
See, e.g., Ally Fin. Inc. , 502 Mich. at 491-492, 918 N.W.2d 662 (noting the canon but observing that "we have also explained ‘that this requirement does not permit a "strained construction" that is contrary to the Legislature's intent’ "), quoting SBC Health Midwest, Inc. v. City of Kentwood , 500 Mich. 65, 71, 894 N.W.2d 535 (2017), in turn quoting Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Lansing Twp. , 423 Mich. 661, 664-665, 378 N.W.2d 737 (1985) ; Gardner v. Dep't of Treasury , 498 Mich. 1, 869 N.W.2d 199 (2015) (interpreting a tax exemption without mention of strict construction); Stone v. Michigan , 467 Mich. 288, 651 N.W.2d 64 (2002) (same); Mich. United Conservation Clubs , 423 Mich. at 665, 378 N.W.2d 737 ("However, this rule [of strict construction] does not mean that we should give a strained construction which is adverse to the Legislature's intent."), citing City of Ann Arbor v. Univ. Cellar, Inc. , 401 Mich. 279, 288-289, 258 N.W.2d 1 (1977) ; Webb Academy v. Grand Rapids , 209 Mich. 523, 536, 177 N.W. 290 (1920) (noting the canon but stating that it could not "be extended so far as to defeat the legislative intent") (quotation marks and citation omitted); Detroit Home & Day Sch. v. Detroit , 76 Mich. 521, 525, 43 N.W. 593 (1889) ("Where language is so plain as to convey a clear and intelligible meaning, we have no right to go beyond it, and impose another meaning. The language of the Legislature in exemption from taxation is as much entitled to obedience as that imposing taxation."); Schaub v. Seyler , 504 Mich. 987, 991, 934 N.W.2d 46 (2019) ( Viviano , J., concurring) (noting that strict-construction rules represent "a method of interpretation that has largely fallen out of favor").
Singer, § 66:9; see also Madugula v. Taub , 496 Mich. 685, 696, 853 N.W.2d 75 (2014) ("When a statute's language is unambiguous, ‘the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. No further judicial construction is required or permitted.’ ") (citation omitted).
See Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm. , 470 Mich. 154, 164-166, 680 N.W.2d 840 (2004) (noting that ambiguity can occur if a statutory provision " ‘irreconcilably conflict[s]’ with another provision" but that "a finding of ambiguity is to be reached only after ‘all other conventional means of [ ] interpretation’ have been applied and found wanting") (citations omitted; alterations in original).
B. THE EXEMPTION
The GSTA imposes taxes on the sale of goods, and the UTA imposes taxes on goods purchased outside the state for use in the state. To avoid the double taxation of a product that would result from exacting both use and sales taxes, the Legislature exempted certain property used or consumed in industrial processing from the taxes in each act. The exemption covers, among other things, "tangible personal property [that] is intended for ultimate use in and is used in industrial processing by an industrial processor" or "is used by [a] person [whether or not an industrial processor] to perform an industrial processing activity for or on behalf of an industrial processor."
MCL 205.52(1) (providing, in pertinent part, that "there is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, by which ownership of tangible personal property is transferred for consideration, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business"); MCL 205.93(1) (providing, in pertinent part, a tax "for the privilege of using, storing, or consuming tangible personal property" that applies "to a person who acquires tangible personal property or services that are subject to the tax levied under this act ... who subsequently converts the tangible personal property or service to a taxable use").
MCL 205.54t(1)(b) and (c) ; MCL 205.94o(1)(b) and (c).
The GSTA's industrial-processing exemption—which is, for present purposes, identical to the UTA's exemption and will be quoted in the text going forward—provides both a general definition of industrial processing, MCL 205.54t(7)(a), and also a list of specific activities that constitute industrial-processing activities, MCL 205.54t(3). The general definition in Subsection (7)(a) states:
The parallel provisions in the UTA are located at MCL 205.94o(7)(a) and MCL 205.94o(3), respectively.
"Industrial processing" means the activity of converting or conditioning tangible personal property by changing the form, composition, quality, combination, or character of the property for ultimate sale at retail or for use in the manufacturing of a product to be ultimately sold at retail. Industrial processing begins when tangible personal property begins movement from raw materials storage to begin industrial processing and ends when finished goods first come to rest in finished goods inventory storage.[ ]
MCL 205.54t(7)(a). The UTA states:
"Industrial processing" means the activity of converting or conditioning tangible personal property by changing the form, composition, quality, combination, or character of the property for ultimate sale at retail or for use in the manufacturing of a product to be ultimately sold at retail or affixed to and made a structural part of real estate located in another state. Industrial processing begins when tangible personal property begins movement from raw materials storage to begin industrial processing and ends when finished goods first come to rest in finished goods inventory storage. [MCL 205.94o(7)(a).]
The definition's second sentence establishes a temporal period during which industrial processing must occur, spanning from when the property begins movement from raw-materials storage into processing until the finished goods enter inventory storage. Subsection (3) states:
Industrial processing includes the following activities:
(a) Production or assembly.
(b) Research or experimental activities.
(c) Engineering related to industrial processing.
(d) Inspection, quality control, or testing to determine whether particular units of materials or products or processes
conform to specified parameters at any time before materials or products first come to rest in finished goods inventory storage.
(e) Planning, scheduling, supervision, or control of production or other exempt activities.
(f) Design, construction, or maintenance of production or other exempt machinery, equipment, and tooling.
(g) Remanufacturing.
(h) Processing of production scrap and waste up to the point it is stored for removal from the plant of origin.
(i) Recycling of used materials for ultimate sale at retail or reuse.
(j) Production material handling.
(k) Storage of in-process materials.[ ]
MCL 205.54t(3) ; see also MCL 205.94o(3).
Machines and other equipment "used in an industrial processing activity and in their repair and maintenance" are eligible for the exemption, as are other types of property.
MCL 205.54t(4)(b) ; see also MCL 205.94o(4)(b).
The question in this case is whether TOMRA's container-recycling machines and repair parts qualify for the exemption under Subsection (3) even if they would not otherwise meet the temporal limitation in the general definition under Subsection (7)(a). The question arises because, as the Court of Appeals dissent noted, TOMRA's machines here "simply facilitate the collection of raw materials" outside the time frame described in Subsection (7)(a), i.e., the period beginning when the materials begin to move from raw-materials storage and ending when the finished goods are first stored as inventory. Thus, if Subsection (7)(a) lays down a mandatory requirement, then TOMRA would not be entitled to an exemption even if it was engaged in one of the industrial-processing activities expressly set forth in Subsection (3).
TOMRA , 325 Mich. App. at 305, 926 N.W.2d 259 ( K. F. Kelly , J., dissenting).
We have never before addressed this issue, but general guidance can be found in Detroit Edison Co. v. Dep't of Treasury . In deciding whether the exemption applied to equipment used in transmitting electricity, we suggested that a taxpayer could claim an exemption either by satisfying the general definition of industrial processing in Subsection (7)(a) or by showing that it was engaged in one or more of the enumerated activities listed in Subsection (3). Most directly, we stated that "the statute also provides that certain specific activities that do not satisfy the general MCL 205.94o(7)(a) definition nonetheless constitute ‘industrial processing’ activity for purposes of the statute," such as the activity described in MCL 205.94o(3)(h). In other words, we made it clear that Subsection (7)(a) and Subsection (3) are discrete inquiries—Subsection (7)(a) does not establish a threshold requirement for an exemption as long as Subsection (3) applies.
Detroit Edison Co. v. Dep't of Treasury , 498 Mich. 28, 869 N.W.2d 810 (2015).
Id. at 49 n. 13, 869 N.W.2d 810.
See id. at 39, 869 N.W.2d 810 ("If ‘industrial processing’ activity is not occurring under either MCL 205.94o(7)(a) or MCL 205.94o(3), ... the analysis is complete and the taxpayer is entitled to no exemption."); id. at 48 & n. 12, 869 N.W.2d 810 (noting that industrial processing "occurs throughout the electric system under MCL 205.94o(7)(a)" but also recognizing "that ‘industrial processing’ may occur under other circumstances as well, e.g., MCL 205.94o(3)(d)") (citation omitted).
Our additional statement that "the analysis begins" with the general definition in Subsection (7)(a) does not lead us to a different conclusion. Id. at 39, 869 N.W.2d 810. The statutes in this case are anomalous because they contain a general definition in one subsection that, standing alone, does not encompass all the things that another subsection specifically identifies (and therefore includes) as "industrial processing" activities. Even so, we still think it makes sense to start with the general definitional section when applying the statutes (if only because it conforms to our usual practice).
We agree with the Court of Claims that the tasks that TOMRA's machines perform occur before the industrial process begins under the general definition in Subsection (7)(a). Therefore, we need to address the department's argument that TOMRA is precluded from claiming an exemption under Subsection (3) based on the temporal limitation of Subsection (7)(a).
If we were to hold, as the department urges, that the temporal limitation in Subsection (7)(a) applies to industrial-processing exemptions sought under Subsection (3), we would create a conflict between those two provisions. That is because some of the activities listed in Subsection (3) fall outside the period specified in the general definition, i.e., from the movement of raw-materials storage until finished goods are placed in inventory storage. For example, it is difficult to see how the activity of "[p]lanning" or "scheduling" of production in Subsection (3) could ever occur within the time frame of Subsection (7)(a). Perhaps an even better example is the "[d]esign, construction, or maintenance of production or other exempt machinery, equipment, and tooling," which must necessarily precede the period of industrial processing defined in Subsection (7)(a). Or take "[r]esearch or experimental activities," which likely must antedate the period by an even greater margin. What is more, Subsection (3)(d) establishes its own time frame for certain forms of "[i]nspection, quality control, or testing," which must take place "at any time before materials or products first come to rest in finished goods inventory storage." This would be yet another provision rendered either unnecessary or meaningless if the temporal limitation in Subsection (7)(a) applied to Subsection (3). In short, accepting the department's interpretation would lay waste to large swaths of Subsection (3).
MCL 205.54t(3)(e) ; see also MCL 205.94o(3)(e).
MCL 205.54t(3)(f) ; see also MCL 205.94o(3)(f).
MCL 205.54t(3)(b) ; see also MCL 205.94o(3)(b).
MCL 205.54t(3)(d) ; see also MCL 205.94o(3)(d).
When a potential conflict like this surfaces within a statute, "it is our duty to, if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them." Indeed, we must always read the text as a whole, "in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts." This is because "[c]ontext is a primary determinant of meaning," and for an interpretation that seeks the ordinary meaning of the statute, it is the narrower context drawn from neighboring provisions within a statute that is most appropriate to consider. Many principles follow from the emphasis on context, including the interpretive canon that words should not, if possible, be rendered surplusage. Here, extending the temporal limitation in Subsection (7)(a) to all requests for exemptions would, as explained above, leave portions of Subsection (3) without meaning or function within the statute.
Nowell v. Titan Ins. Co. , 466 Mich. 478, 483, 648 N.W.2d 157 (2002).
Reading Law , p. 167.
Id. ; see also id. at 33, 869 N.W.2d 810 ("This critical word context embraces not just textual purpose but also (1) a word's historical associations acquired from recurrent patterns of past usage, and (2) a word's immediate syntactic setting ...."); Ordinary Meaning , p. 147 ("One way to capture generalizable meanings ... is to conceive of ordinary meaning as semantic meaning that is determined based on facts from the narrow context.").
Reading Law , p. 167; see also People v. Seewald , 499 Mich. 111, 123, 879 N.W.2d 237 (2016) ("When possible, we strive to avoid constructions that would render any part of the Legislature's work nugatory.").
There is no reason to wreak such havoc upon the statutes here. Another contextual canon harmonizes the provisions and illuminates their ordinary meaning: " ‘[W]here a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’ " This principle is tailor-made for cases like this one, in which statutory provisions would otherwise conflict. The conflict is dissipated by interpreting "the specific provision ... as an exception to the general one." In this case, interpreting Subsection (3) as the more specific provision resolves the conflict and accords the statutes their most natural and ordinary meanings. Subsection (3) lists specific activities that constitute industrial processing, whereas the second sentence of Subsection (7)(a) provides a temporal limitation on the general types of activities described in the first sentence of that subsection. Thus, Subsection (3) is the specific provision with regard to the activities it enumerates. As to those activities, then, Subsection (3) controls and the time frame in Subsection (7)(a) is inapplicable. This interpretation reflects a holistic reading of the statutory text and gives each provision its appropriate meaning and function. We therefore conclude that the temporal limitation in Subsection (7)(a) does not apply to the industrial-processing activities in Subsection (3).
Jones v. Enertel, Inc. , 467 Mich. 266, 270, 650 N.W.2d 334 (2002), quoting Gebhardt v. O'Rourke , 444 Mich. 535, 542-543, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994) (alteration in original).
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank , 566 U.S. 639, 645, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 182 L. Ed. 2d 967 (2012) ("The general/specific canon is perhaps most frequently applied to statutes in which a general permission or prohibition is contradicted by a specific prohibition or permission."); Reading Law , p. 183 ("If there is a conflict between a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision prevails ...."). As we stated in Detroit Edison Co. , 498 Mich. at 44, 869 N.W.2d 810, "the rule only applies when there is some statutory tension or conflict between two possible treatments of a subject ...." In that case, the canon was inapplicable because we found no conflict between the general definition in Subsection (7)(a) and various express exclusions from that definition carved out in Subsection (6)(b). Id. at 45, 869 N.W.2d 810.
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC , 566 U.S. at 645, 132 S.Ct. 2065 ; see also Reading Law , p. 183 ("Under this canon, the specific provision is treated as an exception to the general rule.").
We do not address whether or how the first sentence of Subsection (7)(a) applies to the exemptions in Subsection (3) because that issue is not before the Court.
See Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 481 Mich. 601, 613, 751 N.W.2d 463 (2008) ("In order to determine which provision is truly more specific and, hence, controlling, we consider which provision applies to the more narrow realm of circumstances, and which to the more broad realm.").
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the temporal limitation in Subsection (7)(a) does not apply to the activities listed in Subsection (3). In reaching this conclusion, we further conclude that the rule of strict construction of tax exemptions is inapplicable because the statutes here are unambiguous. On these bases, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision below and remand the case to the Court of Claims for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion.
McCormack, C.J., and Markman, Zahra, Bernstein, Clement, and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Viviano, J.