260727 - Petition FILED.pdf

Prop6325 LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Troy Respondent · 26-002812-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.

pg



 STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR



 PROP6325 LLC , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 Petitioner(s)



 v

 MTT Docket No.



 CITY OF TROY ,

 Respondent(s)



 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION



 1 Property Parcel No: 88-20-03-401-028

 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition

 Form addressing all other parcels at issue.)



 2. The property identified above is X real ___ personal.



 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties

 contiguous? __ Yes ___ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

 contiguous parcel.)



 4, Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property

 under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each

 parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under

 appeal.)



 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal

 property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary):



 6. The property identified above is classified as 401 (Residential - Improved)



 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made

 to Respondent's X March July December Board of Review.



 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL - 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 - 517-335-9760

 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 - Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE. LANSING, MI 48906

MTT Docket No.

Page 2 of 4



 If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific

 facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the

 assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):



 If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the

 classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31

 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which

 Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or

 assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):



 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Oakland County. The

 property or properties’ address is:



 6325 Rochester Road, Troy, MI 48085



 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable

 local governmental unit): City of Troy



 12. Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is:



 4326 Ardmore, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302



 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):

 the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values

 the property or properties’ taxable value only

 If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a

 dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes __ No

 uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

 X the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation

 under MCL z2rz0m (exemption from uncapping).



 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026

MTT Docket No.

Page 3 of 4



15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific

 facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior

 tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary):



16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's

 Board of Review are:



 Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value

 2026 $171,730 $171,730



 2025 $163,080 $145,150



17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are:



 Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value

 2026 $171,730 $149,069

 2025 $163,080 $145,150



18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are:



 Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value

 2026 $171,730 or $149,609



19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary):



 An exemption for uncapping pursuant to MCL 211.27(a)(7)(m).



20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the

 relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):



 See attached Addendum.

MTT Docket No.

Page 4 of 4



EA Representative or, if none, Petitioner:



Printed Name ns Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner:



Jeffrey J. Franklin (P71589)



Email Address: jeff@franklinfirm.org



Mailing Address: 410 W. University Drive, Suite 110, Rochester, MI 48307



Telephone Number: (248) 770-7058



Date: Joy 27, 22%L

ADDENDUM TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION

 PROP6325 LLC

 6325 Rochester Road, Troy, MI

 Parcel No. 20-03-401-028



20. Specific Facts Supporting Relief Requested



 The property in question is rental real estate used in a trade or business and has

been used as such before and after the transfer of the property from Mr. and Mrs. Belian

to their Holding Company and from it to the taxpayer, a wholly owned subsidiary of the

Holding Company.



 The Guidelines provide that initial transfers by individuals of a fee simple interest

in property," made to an entity such as a . . . limited liability company . . . are considered

to be transfers between commonly controlled entities and not transfers of ownership, if

the interests and extent of control which the individuals have in the entity are identical to

the ownership interest and extent of control which each of the individuals had in the

property prior to the initial transfer.



 The business purpose is evident, to continue the operation of this rental property,

but not as husband and wife, but as 50/50 owners of a limited liability company controlled

by them both jointly.



 IRS Regulation attribution rules: IRS Regulation 1.414(c)-4, provide that

ownership attributed from spouses is used in determining entities under common control.

As a result:



 * The transfer from the Holding Company to a subsidiary LLC, which is wholly



 owned by the Holding Company, is a transfer among commonly controlled

 entities and is not a transfer of ownership and therefore not subject to

 uncapping.’



"What we have here.

2 Property was owned by husband and wife and then transferred to their Holding Company which, as evidenced

by the redacting operating agreement provided in connection with this submission, is owned by them on a

50/50 basis.

3 The State Tax Commission has directed that Michigan Revenue Bulletin 1989-48 is to be used in determining

whether entities are commonly controlled. The most germane category of common control applicable to the

taxpayer is the third: a combined group of trades or businesses (a specific combination of a parent-subsidiary

group and a brother-sister group of trades or businesses).

« The Belians own the Holding Company on a 50/50 basis as evidenced by a



 redacted copy of the operating agreement attached below.



 « The taxpayer is a subsidiary of a Holding Company, the sole owner of the



 taxpayer.



The structure of ownership satisfies all the hallmarks of being entities under common

control and, therefore, the transfer to the taxpayer cannot be deemed to be a transfer of

ownership. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from uncapping under MCL



211.27a(7)(m).



 Respectfully submitted,



 FRANKLIN LAW FIRM



 By: [sl Jeffrey J. Franklin

 JEFFREY J. FRANKLIN (P71589)

 410 W. University Drive, Suite 110

 Rochester, MI 48307-1938

 (248) 770-7058

 jeff@franklinfirm.org

Dated: July 23, 2026

← View full record