Respondent's Answers and Affirmative Defenses - Tim Donut v Mt Pleasant.pdf
Tim Donut US Ltd Inc Petitioner Vs. City Of Mt Pleasant Respondent · 26-001443-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________ TIM DONUT US LTD INC, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MT PLEASANT, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001443 Parcel ID No. 17-000-17905-00 ______________________________________________________________________________ Joshua T. Shillair. Esq. (P72674) COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Representative for Petitioner 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 226-1632 joshua.shillair@colliers.com Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 mhomier@fosterswift.com tdillon@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, City of Mount Pleasant, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. The Petitioner in this matter, TIM DONUT US LTD INC, has the legal residence or principal office address of 130 King St W, Suite 300, Toronto, ON M5X 1E1, Canada. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on property parcel no(s). (hereinafter referenced as the Subject Property) 17-000-17905-00. If the Subject Property in this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the Subject Property’s tax parcels are contiguous.
Page 2
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. The Subject Property is located in Isabella County. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 3. Respondent, City of Mt Pleasant of Isabella County, assesses and collects property taxes on the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. The Subject Property is real property and is classified as Commercial. The Subject Property is presently used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 4 regarding the classification of the subject property. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Protest to the 2026 Board of Review was not made and is not required by law for the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits that no protest was made but neither admits nor denies the legal conclusion contained in paragraph 5 that no protest was required by law and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. The Subject Property’s address is: 1004 E PICKARD ST, MT PLEASANT, MI 48858 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6. 7. This appeal involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
8. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition. 9. The values for the Subject Property as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 17-000-17905-00 $731,000.00 $365,500.00 $361,709.00 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations pertaining to the True Cash Value and Assessed Value contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition as being inaccurate. By way of further response, Respondent answers that the True Cash Value and Assessed Value as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are as follows: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 17-000-17905-00 $733,000.00 $366,500.00 $361,709.00 10. The 2026 assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value imposed upon all parcels of the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value exceeds the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; b. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; c. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the Subject Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and
Page 4
d. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and dues process of law. ANSWER: The preceding allegation contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations. 11. Petitioner contends that the actual values for the Subject Property are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 17-000-17905-00 $510,400.00 $255,200.00 $255,200.00 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 12. The amount of value in contention for the Subject Property is: Tax Year Parcel Number Assessed Value in Contention 2026 17-000-17905-00 $110,300.00 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition as untrue. 13. Petitioner relies on the following specific facts to support the relief requested: Market sales and income data indicates that the subject property’s assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value exceed 50% of its actual market value. In addition, the cost less depreciation method Respondent utilizes to establish the Subject Property’s assessment at issue is not related to the Subject Property’s actual market value. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Mount Pleasant, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State.
Page 5
2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become
Page 6
known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: September 16, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Michael D. Homier (60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 85714:00045:203066040-1