Respondent Prehearing Statement MTT 24-004252.pdf

Fossores, Petitioner Vs. City Of Jackson, Respondent · 24-004252-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FOSSORES, 

Petitioner, 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004252 

CITY OF JACKSON, 

Respondent. 

 

____ PETITIONER’S PROPERTY PREHEARING STATEMENT 

__X__ RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY PREHEARING STATEMENT 

 

Petitioner’s representative: Ryan L. Phillips PC, Ryan L. Phillips P73731 

Respondent’s representative: Jackson City Attorney’s Office, Matthew M. Hagerty P66015 

I. 

VALUATION INFORMATION: 

A. The true cash value (TCV), assessed value (AV), and taxable value (TV) for each 

parcel and tax year at issue as established by the Board of Review: 

Parcel Number: 2-005700000 

Year 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

2024 

374400 

187200 

186270 

2025 

530200 

265100 

192044 

2026 

478600 

239300 

197229 

 

B. Your contentions of TCV, state equalized value (SEV), and TV for each parcel and 

tax year at issue: 

Parcel Number: 2-005700000 

Year 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

2024 

374400 

187200 

186270 

2025 

530200 

265100 

192044 

2026 

478600 

239300 

197229

2 

 

C. Amounts in dispute for the tax year(s) at issue: 

Parcel Number: 2-005700000 

Year 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

2024 

 

 

186270 

2025 

 

 

192044 

2026 

 

 

197229 

II. 

TAX INFORMATION: 

A. Have taxes been paid for each property for each tax year at issue? 

____ Yes __X__ No 

III. 

FACTUAL STATEMENT OF CLAIMS: 

A. Describe any additions or losses for each property for each tax year at issue (by 

parcel number and tax year): 

Not applicable. 

B. Classification of each property for each tax year at issue (by parcel number): 

Parcel 2-005700000: 201-Commercial. 

C. Current use of each property for each tax year at issue, if different than above (by 

parcel number): 

The subject property is utilized as an Airbnb rental property and is currently listed for 

sale. It is not used predominantly as a property owned and utilized by a religious society 

for religious services or for teaching the religious truths and beliefs of the society. 

D. Contention of highest and best use for each property for each tax year at issue, if 

different than property’s current use for each tax year at issue (by parcel number): 

Not applicable. Valuation is not in dispute. 

E. Your factual statement of claims in support of your contentions, including 

additions and losses, if any (i.e., what facts are you relying on in support of your 

claim or defense?): 

The subject property is not exempt from ad valorem taxation for the 2024, 2025, or 2026 

tax years. It was properly placed on the assessment roll and assessed as taxable 

commercial real property. The true cash, assessed, and state equalized values 

established by the Board of Review are correct and are not contested by Petitioner. The 

taxable values of $186,270 (2024), $192,044 (2025), and $197,229 (2026) are correct. 

Respondent contends that the subject property is utilized as an Airbnb rental property 

and not predominantly as a property owned and utilized by a religious society for 

religious services or for teaching the religious truths and beliefs of the society. Use of the 

property for short-term rental lodging is a commercial use that does not qualify for 

exemption under MCL 211.7s. 

Petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to the exemption by a preponderance 

of the evidence, and exemption statutes are strictly construed in favor of the taxing

3 

 

authority. Petitioner has not established that it is a religious society, that it owned the 

property on each relevant tax day, or that the property is a house of public worship used 

predominantly for religious services or for teaching the religious truths and beliefs of the 

society. The same exemption issue for the 2023 tax year remains pending before the 

Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 378084 (MTT docket no. 23-000609-TT) 

F. If non-uniformity of assessment is alleged, what evidence will you rely upon in 

support of your contentions? 

Not applicable. 

IV. 

ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: 

A. Factual Issues: 

1. Whether the subject property was utilized as an Airbnb rental property during each tax 

year at issue. 

2. Whether the subject property was used predominantly for religious services or for 

teaching the religious truths and beliefs of the society during each tax year at issue. 

3. Whether Petitioner is a religious society. 

4. Whether Petitioner owned the subject property on the relevant tax day for each tax 

year at issue (December 31, 2023, 2024, and 2025). 

B. Legal Issues: 

1. Whether the subject property qualifies as a house of public worship exempt from 

taxation under MCL 211.7s for the 2024, 2025, and 2026 tax years. 

2. Whether Petitioner has met its burden of proving entitlement to the exemption. 

V. 

DO THE PLEADINGS NEED TO BE AMENDED TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE? 

____ Yes __X__ No 

VI. 

ARE THERE CONSOLIDATION ISSUES? 

____ Yes __X__ No 

VII. 

PENDING OR ANTICIPATED MOTIONS OR OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY ISSUES, IF 

ANY: 

A. Motions: 

Respondent reserves the right to file a motion for summary disposition on or before Nov. 

2nd, 2026 

B. Discovery: 

None at this time. 

VIII. 

WITNESSES – IDENTIFY THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON WHO MAY 

TESTIFY AND PROVIDE A GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT AREA OF THE 

TESTIMONY OF EACH PERSON IDENTIFIED: 

A. Jason Yoakam, City Assessor, City of Jackson, 161 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, MI 

49201. The assessment, classification, and taxable status of the subject property; the

4 

 

denial of the exemption claim; and the assessor’s records and observations of the 

property’s use, including its use as an Airbnb rental property. 

B. Any witness identified on Petitioner’s prehearing statement, including David 

McDonald, Ryan Parschall, Kelly Heath, Jamin Bradley, Donald Bumgardner, Jr., and 

Joshua Kirchmeier, as adverse witnesses concerning the ownership, use, and rental of 

the subject property and Petitioner’s organization, finances, and activities. 

C. Any witness necessary for rebuttal or to authenticate documents. 

IX. 

NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED FOR HEARING: 1-2 

X. 

DISCLOSURE AND TAXATION OF COSTS: 

Respondent does not seek costs at this time. Respondent reserves the right to seek 

costs under MCL 205.752 and R 792.10209 if it prevails. 

 

 

By: /s/ Matthew M. Hagerty 

 

Date: October 1, 2026 

Matthew M. Hagerty (P66015) 

Jackson City Attorney 

Attorney for Respondent City of Jackson 

161 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, MI 49201

← View full record