26-000215.pdf
East Penn Manufacturing Co., Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing, Respondent · 26-000215-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
RECEIVED a JUL 29 2026 Evil \& 5 ok MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Rr STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON |. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR DIRECTOR LANSING East Penn Manufacturing , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 26-000215 City of Lansing , Respondent. ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX ANSWER 1. x__Admit ___Deny. If denied, state the parcel number for the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue: 33-01-05-03-251-022 (if more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Answer Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. X_ Admit Deny. [f denied, the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition is X__ real ___ personal. 3. N/A Admit ___ Deny. If denied, identify the contiguous and non-contiguous parcels by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 4. N/A Admit ___ Deny. If denied, identify the parcel or parcels of personal property that are not located on a parcel of real property under appeal by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 5. N/A Admit ___ Deny. a. If denied, state when the personal property statements were filed, if at ali: b. On what date did the March Board of Review commence: 6. X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, state the classification of the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue:
Page 2
MTT Docket No, 26-000215 . Page 2of4 7. 10. 11. 12. N/A Admit __ Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): N/A Admit ___ Deny ___ Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional age if necessary). N/A Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, state the facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): X__Admit____Deny. If denied, in what County are the property or properties located in and what is the address of the property or properties: X__Admit ___ Deny. If denied, what is the applicable local governmental unit: Admit Deny X__ Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary):
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 26-000215 . Page 3 of 4 14. Admit Deny X__Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary). 15. Admit Deny X__Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional age 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 $986,000 $493,000 $341,847 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $986,000 $493,000 $341,847 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $0 $0 $0
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 26-000215 Page 4 of 4 19. Admit X Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’ s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2065 tax year. 20. Admit X Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary). Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 for the reason that it is untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’ s mode of assessment are constitutional. 21. List any separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies to support every ground on which Respondent relies and also has the burden of proof (attach additional page if necessary): Evidence to follow. 22. List affirmative defenses and the separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies in support of those affirmative defenses (attach additional page if necessary): SEE ATTACHED Signature of Respdhdent’s Aythorized R presentative or, if none, Respondent: Ru JASN NRbas Printed Name of Respondent's Authorized Representative or, if none, Respondent: Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO Email Address: jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO Petitioner v MOAHR Docket 26-000215 Parcel No. 33-01-05-03-251-022 CITY OF LANSING, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO, City Assessor Michael R. French, Commercial/Industrial Appraiser 124 W. Michigan Avenue 3rd Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4120 michael french@lansingmi.gov RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the following affirmative defenses: A. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioners claim for relief. B. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the
Page 6
MTT Docket # 26-000215 B. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or its agents. C. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. b. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. E. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect. F. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this state. G. Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondents taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. H. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. IL Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional
Page 7
MTT Docket # 26-000215 K. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR p CITY OF LANSING —— 2 0 vp loudidey hrf swdod foudicy Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO Michael R. French City Assessor, City of Lansing 34d Floor, City Hall 124 W Michigan Ave Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4120 michael. french@lansingmi.gov
Page 8
Yerzgares® STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR East Penn Manufacturing Co Petitioner(s) ; MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Y MTT Docket No.26-000215 City of Lansing Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE Jennifer Hendrix states that on 7/2 7 he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [date of service] served a copy of the Answer relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] MTT PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48909 AND Ryan Everett - BDO USA PC 2600 W Big Beaver Rd Troy, Ml 48084 \ ud oud sr [Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] Jennifer Hendrix [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 9
CITY OF LANSING ASSESSOR 3RD FLOOR, CITY HALL 124 W. MICHIGAN AVENUE LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 MTT 4 J 5X 2023 2 Received Im LAASIALG, mM | UL 29 20% 4x90 9 LARA Ta CL a Er FL LT TER BTR