Petition - POS.pdf
Jackson Road Cinemas, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Scio Respondent · 26-000676-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 TAX TRIBUNAL Jackson Road Cinemas, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Scio Township, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000676 _____________________________________________________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE (Property Tax Petition) On the date below I sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Petition to: Township Assessor Scio Township 827 N Zeeb Rd Ann Arbor, MI 48103-1599 Township Supervisor Scio Township 827 N Zeeb Rd Ann Arbor, MI 48103-1599 On the date below I sent by first class mail a copy of the Petition to: Equalization Director Washtenaw County 200 N Main St, Suite 210 PO Box 8645 Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8645 County Clerk Washtenaw County 200 N Main St Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Secretary, Board of Education Ann Arbor Public Schools 2555 S State St Ann Arbor, MI 48104 State Treasurer Department of Treasury 430 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48922 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan Dated: July 15, 2026
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS Jackson Road Cinemas, LLC, Petitioner, v Scio Township, Respondent. MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Docket No. 26-000676______ Parcel No. H-08-23-480-001 _____________________________________________________________________________/ PROPERTY TAX PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., contends: 1. ☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number H-08-23-480-001 Address 3686 Jackson Road Classification 201 Commercial Use Vacant theater County Washtenaw Sch Dist Ann Arbor Public Schools 2. ☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: ☐March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 4. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. 5. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 150 W. 2nd Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067-3846. 6. This appeal involves issues related to: ☒ the subject property’s true cash and taxable values ☐ the subject property’s taxable value only there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ uniformity of the subject property’s assessment ☐ the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______
Page 3
Petition 2 7. The tax year at issue is 2026. 8. The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV H-08-23-480-001 6,450,200 3,225,100 1,905,906 9. Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV H-08-23-480-001 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 10. The values1 in dispute are. Parcel Number TCV SEV TV H-08-23-480-001 5,450,200 2,725,100 1,405,906 11. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and (d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.
Page 4
Petition 3 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 Dated: April 20, 2026 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com Filing Fee: $600