Berishaj Shelby Twp (009 parcel) with appendices.pdf

Berishaj Investments LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Shelby, Respondent · 25-003200-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.

25-0087 

61762218.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Berishaj Investments, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

Shelby Township, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 

Parcel No. 23-07-24-427-009 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 566-8474 

jcook@honigman.com

Tax Year 2025 Petition 

Petitioner, Berishaj Investments, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, for 

its Petition against Respondent, Shelby Township, states as follows: 

Parties and Subject Property 

1.

Petitioner is a Michigan limited liability company with a principal office located at 

2600 W. Big Beaver Rd., Troy, MI 48084-3342. 

2.

Petitioner owns and/or leases real property, assessed under tax parcel no. 23-07-24-

427-009, located at 15048 Commercial Dr., Shelby Township, Michigan (the “subject property”). 

3.

Petitioner is identified as the taxpayer on the assessment roll for the subject 

property.

2 

61762218.1 

4.

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to the taxable status and property tax 

assessment of the subject property under MCL 205.735a(6). 

5.

Respondent, Shelby Township (the “Township”), is a township located in Macomb 

County, Michigan. 

6.

For tax year 2025, the subject property was classified “Industrial Improved.” 

7.

The subject property was designed and is presently used for agricultural purposes. 

8.

In particular, the subject property is occupied for growing cannabis plants. 

9.

Like other agricultural operations, the activities involved in growing the plants 

include planting, pruning, spraying, irrigating, and harvesting. 

10.

The subject property is used for agricultural purposes by supporting the daily 

monitoring and care of the plants as they develop through their life cycle. 

11.

The subject property is devoted primarily to agricultural use. 

2025 Assessment Protest to the Board of Review and Jurisdiction 

12.

Petitioner timely submitted a Claim for Farmland (Qualified Agricultural) 

Exemption from Some School Operating Taxes, Form 2599 (“QAE application”) to the assessor. 

App. 1 to Appendix A. 

13.

The assessor denied the QAE application. App. 2 to Appendix A. 

14.

Petitioner timely protested the assessor’s QAE application denial to the July Board 

of Review. Appendix A. 

15.

The July Board of Review denied Petitioner’s protest. Appendix B. 

16.

Petitioner hereby appeals the July Board of Review’s QAE application denial and 

requests that this Tax Tribunal grant the subject property the Qualified Agricultural Exemption. 

17.

The Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction of this Petition.

3 

61762218.1 

Count I – The subject property qualifies for 

the Qualified Agricultural Exemption under MCL 211.7ee 

18.

Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made above and 

below as though restated herein. 

19.

This count involves issues relating to: (a) uniformity and (b) exemption. 

20.

For tax year 2025, the Township determined the following taxable value and 

assessed value for the subject property, which will result in a state equalized value in the same 

amount based on the tentative equalization factor: 

Parcel No. 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

23-07-24-427-009 

$1,339,500 

$1,057,496 

21.

The subject property qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural Exemption under MCL 

211.7ee because it is devoted primarily to agricultural use. 

22.

MCL 211.7ee, provides: 

(1) Qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local 

school district for school operating purposes […] 

* 

* 

* 

(6) An owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for 

which an exemption was not on the tax roll may file an appeal with the July or 

December board of review in the year the exemption was claimed or the 

immediately succeeding year. An owner of property that is qualified agricultural 

property on May 1 for which an exemption was denied by the assessor in the year 

the affidavit was filed, may file an appeal with the July board of review for summer 

taxes or, if there is not a summer levy of school operating taxes, with the December 

board of review. 

23.

“Qualified agricultural property” is defined in MCL 211.7dd(d) as “unoccupied 

property and related buildings located on property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined 

in section 36101 [MCL 324.36101] of the natural resources and environmental protection act.”

4 

61762218.1 

24.

“Agricultural use” is defined in MCL 324.36101(b) as “the production of plants 

and animals useful to humans including […] Christmas trees, and other similar uses and activities”: 

"Agricultural use" means “the production of plants and animals useful to humans, 

including forages and sod crops; grains, feed crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy 

products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including breeding and grazing 

of cattle, swine, captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; herbs; flowers; 

seeds; grasses; nursery stock; fruits; vegetables; maple syrup production; Christmas 

trees; and other similar uses and activities…” MCL 211.7dd(d) and MCL 

324.36101(b). 

25.

The definition includes all plants useful to humans without exclusion. 

26.

The subject property is used for growing and harvesting cannabis plants; more 

specifically, marihuana plants – plants with seeds of the genus Cannabis. MCL 333.27953(h). 

27.

Michigan has declared cannabis useful to humans in the Michigan Medical 

Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, at MCL 333.26422(a):

The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that … [m]odern medical 

research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of 

Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in 

treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a 

variety of debilitating medical conditions. 

28.

The Michigan Legislature has codified that cannabis is useful to humans as a 

treatment of the following debilitating medical conditions:

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired 

immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's 

disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these 

conditions. 

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that 

produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and 

chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those 

characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not 

limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis. 

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the marijuana 

regulatory agency, as provided for in section 6(k). [MCL 333.26423(b)] 

29.

Plants “of the genus Cannabis” are useful to humans. MCL 333.27953(h), MCL

5 

61762218.1 

333.26422(a)Error! Bookmark not defined., and MCL 333.26423(b). 

30.

Accordingly, a farming operation growing cannabis plants is engaged in an 

“agricultural use.” MCL 211.7dd(d), MCL 211.7ee, and MCL 324.36101(b). 

31.

Significantly, the State of Michigan has determined personal property used in this 

type of operation is exempt from sales and use tax under a similar agricultural exemption. MCL 

205.54a(1)(e); MCL 205.94(1)(f); Revenue Administrative Bulletin (“RAB”) 2023-9 (Approved: 

7/19/23). The exemption applies to the “sale of tangible personal property to a person engaged in 

a business enterprise that uses [said property], directly or indirectly, for either the tilling, planting, 

caring for, . . . or harvesting of things of the soil or the . . . caring for . . . horticultural products . . 

. .” MCL 205.54a(1)(e). In addition, it is the position of the Michigan Department of Treasury that 

“the growing of marijuana generally qualifies for the agricultural production exemption” under 

MCL 205.54a and MCL 205.93. RAB 2023-09. 

32.

The Township’s attempt to tax the subject property in 2025 when the subject 

property qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural Exemption is invalid, unlawful, and operates as a 

fraud on Petitioner, as the assessment is based on an erroneous determination of the subject 

property’s taxable status under Michigan law. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tax Tribunal find and determine 

that: 

(1)

Tax parcel no. 23-07-24-427-009 qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural 

Exemption; 

(2)

Tax parcel no. 23-07-24-427-009 is exempt from the tax levied by a local school 

district for school operating purposes per MCL 211.7ee(1); and

6 

61762218.1 

(3)

Petitioner is entitled to an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees, and such 

other and further relief as the Tax Tribunal determines is permitted by law and 

as Petitioner is justly entitled. 

Count II – Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee 

for the subject property is unconstitutional 

33.

Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made above and 

below as though restated herein. 

34.

This count involves issues relating to: (i) uniformity and (ii) exemption. 

35.

The Township’s attempt to tax the subject property in 2025 when the subject 

property qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural Exemption is invalid, unlawful, and operates as a 

fraud on Petitioner, as the assessment and the mode of assessment adopted by the Township 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal 

protection, and due process of law. 

36.

Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee(1) while granting the 

exemption to other taxpayers who use their property in the same manner Petitioner uses the subject 

property is unconstitutional as it denies Petitioner equal protection guaranteed by the United States 

Constitution and Michigan’s Constitution. 

37.

Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee(1) while granting the 

exemption to other taxpayers whose property is substantially similar – if not identical – to 

Petitioner’ subject property is unconstitutional as it denies Petitioner equal protection guaranteed 

by the United States Constitution and Michigan’s Constitution. 

38.

Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee(1) otherwise violates 

the United States Constitution and Michigan’s Constitution.

7 

61762218.1 

39.

Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee(1) is unsupported by 

substantial or reliable evidence, and is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise contrary to law. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tax Tribunal find and determine 

that: 

(1)

Tax parcel no. 23-07-24-427-009 qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural 

Exemption; 

(2)

Tax parcel no. 23-07-24-427-009 is exempt from the tax levied by a local school 

district for school operating purposes per MCL 211.7ee(1); and 

(3)

Petitioner is entitled to an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees, and such 

other and further relief as the Tax Tribunal determines is permitted by law and 

as Petitioner is justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 566-8474 

Dated: August 21, 2025 

jcook@honigman.com

61762218.1 

Appendix A

Jackie J. Cook

Office: 248.566.8474

jcook@honigman.com

Honigman LLP • 39400 Woodward Avenue • Suite 101 • Bloomfield Hills, Michigan • 48304-5151

61152490.3 

July 17, 2025 

Via Federal Express and Email to mschmidt@shelbytwp.org

Shelby Township – Assessing Department 

Shelby Township Board of Review 

Matthew Schmidt, Assessor 

c/o Assessor, Matthew Schmidt 

52700 Van Dyke Avenue 

 

52700 Van Dyke Avenue 

Shelby Township, MI 48316-3572 

 

Shelby Township, MI 48316-3572 

Re: 

July Board of Review Protest 

Qualified Agricultural Exemption Claim 

Real parcel no. 23-07-24-427-009, at 15048 Commercial Dr.. (the “property”) 

Dear Mr. Schmidt and Members of the Shelby Township Board of Review: 

Berishaj Investments, LLC (“the taxpayer”) hereby protests the assessor’s denial of the 

taxpayer’s qualified agricultural exemption claim. On May 1, 2025, the taxpayer filed a “Claim 

for Farmland (Qualified Agricultural) Exemption from Some School Operating Taxes” (“QAE 

claim”) for the property. See App. 1. On July 3, 2025, the assessor denied the taxpayer’s QAE 

claim. See App. 2. 

The Michigan Tax Tribunal has held a cannabis grow operation, like the taxpayer’s 

property, qualifies for the QAE as it is primarily devoted to agricultural use under MCL 211.7ee, 

MCL 211.7dd(d), and MCL 324.36101(b). See IIP-MI 4 LLC and LivWell Michigan LLC v City 

of Warren, MTT Docket No. 24-000081, Final Opinion issued October 8, 2024, attached as App. 

3. This Board should also grant the QAE claim as the taxpayer’s property is devoted primarily to 

agricultural use. 

A letter of authorization from the owner/taxpayer is attached as App. 4. 

I.

The property is devoted primarily to agricultural use.

Berishaj Investments LLC operates a cannabis grow operation at 15048 Commercial Drive, 

in Shelby Township. The predominant use of the building is for growing plants from seed to plant 

to flowering and to otherwise support the growing of the plants as they develop. See floor plan of 

the building within the attached App. 1. As depicted on the floor plan, the building is used solely 

for growing and processing plants. The property is accordingly devoted primarily to agricultural 

use.

July 17, 2025, Page 2 

Honigman LLP • 39400 Woodward Avenue • Suite 101 • Bloomfield Hills, Michigan • 48304-5151

61152490.3 

II.

Growing cannabis plants is an “agricultural use” under the qualified agricultural 

exemption under MCL 211.7ee, MCL 211.7dd(d), and MCL 324.36101(b). 

A.

Overview of the QAE. 

Commercial farming is encouraged in Michigan, in part, through the legislation of certain 

property tax exemptions. The exemption at issue here is called the qualified agricultural exemption 

(“QAE”), exempting qualifying property from 18 mills of school operating tax. MCL 211.7ee(1). 

Property classified “agricultural” qualifies. MCL 211.7ee(2). Property classified other than 

agricultural still qualifies for the QAE if the property is “devoted primarily to agricultural use,” 

meaning “50% of the parcel’s acreage is devoted to agricultural use.” MCL 211.7dd(d). 

“Agricultural use,” as defined in MCL 324.36101 includes “the production of plants… useful to 

humans”: 

"Agricultural use" means “the production of plants and animals 

useful to humans, including forages and sod crops; grains, feed 

crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy products; poultry and poultry 

products; livestock, including breeding and grazing of cattle, swine, 

captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; herbs; flowers; seeds; 

grasses; nursery stock; fruits; vegetables; maple syrup production; 

Christmas trees; and other similar uses and activities…” MCL 

211.7dd(d) and MCL 324.36101(b).

Notably, the Legislature did not identify a single type of plant or crop, other than Christmas 

trees, as “plants and animals useful to humans.” The Legislature instead choose to broadly describe 

types of plants, and in the event the broad language was not broad enough, the Legislature added 

all-encompassing language – “and other similar uses and activities” – to make sure “agricultural 

use” was not read too narrowly. Notably, the Legislature also did not name a single plant or crop 

as excluded from the definition. The definition includes all plants useful to humans without 

exclusion. 

B.

Plants useful to humans are produced at the property. 

The property at issue is used for growing and harvesting cannabis plants. This is 

uncontroverted. More specifically, marihuana plants – plants with seeds of the genus Cannabis – 

are grown there. MCL 333.27953(h). 

Like all other farmers in Michigan in the business of growing plants, the taxpayer grows 

plants with a business purpose of selling the agricultural by-products to businesses involved in the 

production of cannabis products or to businesses involved in selling the products at retail. 

Michigan has declared cannabis useful to humans in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, 

Initiated Law 1 of 2008, at MCL 333.26422(a):

July 17, 2025, Page 3 

Honigman LLP • 39400 Woodward Avenue • Suite 101 • Bloomfield Hills, Michigan • 48304-5151

61152490.3 

The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that … 

[m]odern medical research, including as found by the National 

Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, 

has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or 

alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a 

variety of debilitating medical conditions.

The Michigan Legislature has codified that cannabis is useful to humans as a treatment of the 

following debilitating medical conditions: 

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency 

virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of 

Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these 

conditions.

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its 

treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or 

wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, 

including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or 

severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to 

those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the 

marijuana regulatory agency, as provided for in section 6(k). [MCL 

333.26423(b)]

Plants “of the genus Cannabis” are useful to humans. MCL 333.27953(h), MCL 

333.26422(a), and MCL 333.26423(b). Accordingly, a farming operation growing cannabis plants 

is engaged in an “agricultural use.” MCL 211.7dd(d), MCL 211.7ee, and MCL 324.36101(b). 

C.

Cannabis grow operations are otherwise treated as “agricultural” in 

Michigan. 

The Michigan Department of Treasury has otherwise treated grow operations as 

“agricultural”. The Department’s official position in Revenue Administrative Bulletin 2023-9 is 

that equipment used for growing cannabis is exempt from sales and use tax under the agricultural 

production exemption in MCL 205.54a(1)(e) and MCL 205.94(1)(f), exempting:

July 17, 2025, Page 4 

Honigman LLP • 39400 Woodward Avenue • Suite 101 • Bloomfield Hills, Michigan • 48304-5151

61152490.3 

[P]roperty sold to a person engaged in a business enterprise that uses 

or consumes the property, directly or indirectly, for either the tilling, 

planting, draining, caring for, maintaining, or harvesting of things 

of the soil or the breeding, raising, or caring for livestock, poultry, 

or horticultural products, including the transfers of livestock, 

poultry, or horticultural products for further growth.

Cannabis growers’ equipment is exempt from sales and use tax as “agricultural production” 

property: “the growing of marijuana generally qualifies for the agricultural production exemption.” 

III.

Conclusion. 

Berishaj Investments LLC respectfully requests that the July Board of Review grant the 

QAE claim. A Board of Review Petition form is attached as App. 5. Thank you for your time and 

consideration. 

Very truly yours, 

Jackie J. Cook 

HONIGMAN LLP 

cc: 

Zeff Berishaj 

(Enclosures)

61152490.3 

Appendix 1

Michigan Department of Treasury 

2599 (Rev. 05-11) 

Reset Form 

Issued under P.A. 237 of 1994, as amended. Filing 

is required if you wish to receive an exemption. 

Claim for Farmland (Qualified Agricultural) Exemption 

from Some School Operating Taxes 

Do you need to file this claim? 

If you answer "YES" to either of these questions, you do NOT need to file this form. 

* |s the property vacant and classified by the assessor as agricultural? 

(Note: Vacant property classified as agricultural is automatically exempt 

from some school taxes and the changes will be made on your next tax bill.) 

* Have you already filed the Principal Residence Exemption Affidavit (Form 2368) for this property? 

If you answered "NO" to both of these questions and the property is used primarily for agricultural purposes but is not 

classified as agricultural, complete this form and file it with your local township or city by May 1. 

If your property has a residence or other buildings on it, your assessor may ask you to complete this form, even though 

it is 

classified agricultural. 

Section 1. File a separate claim for each qualified parcel. 

Name of Owner (first, middle, last) 

Berishaj Investments LLC 

Name of Co-Owner (first, middle, last) 

Street Address of Property Claimed 

15048 Commercial Dr. 

City and State 

ZIP Code 

Check one: 

Shelby Township, Ml 

48315 

Name of Township/City Where Property 

is Located 

County of Property 

Township 

UJ City 

Shelby 

Macomb 

any extra spaces blank. Use a full space for any hyphens (-) in the number. 

Enter the property tax identification number of the qualified property you are claiming. This number is on your tax bill or your assessment notice. 

Start at the left and leave 

Section 2: Farmland. 

for a different. residence?.... 

percentage in Section 3. 

‘| 

d. Does this property include any buildings not involved in the agricultural operation? 

a. 

If this property is not classified as agricultural, is more than 50% of the acreage devoted to an agricultural use? 

c. 

If the property includes a residence, has the occupant filed a Fticpal Residence Exemption Affidavit (Form 2368) 

(Skip this question 

if your property is classified @griCURUIAL) .........ccccvwiiii 

. 

Yes X 

No 

b. Does this property include any residences occupied by a person who is not involved in the agricultural operation?............... Yes J 

No Xx 

Yes OJ 

No x 

- 

Yes Ol 

No X 

If you answered yes’ to items 2b, 2c or 2d, part of your property does not qualify. You must enter a 

Section 3: Multi-Purpose Property. 

If you answered 'yes' to item 2b, 2c or 2d, give the percentage of the property value that is devoted to agricultural use. 

Exclude from this percentage the value of any property that does not qualify (see instructions on back). This information is 

necessary for your township or city to adjust your property taxes properly. (See back for computation.) ...............cowiiiescinins 

100 

Certification: This affidavit is invalid unless it is signed. 

1 certify, under penalty of perjury, that I own (or co-own) the property claimed on this affidavit, that it is qualifed agricultural property, and 

that all information is true to the best of my knowledge. 

Owner's Signature 

Date 

+ 

9 

04-29-2025 

Co - owner's Signéture 

Date 

F 420-25 

Daytime Phone Number 

E-mail Address 

zeffconcrete @comcast.net

Berishaj Investments LLC 

Parcel No. 23-07-24-427-009 

15048 Commercial Dr., Shelby Township, MI 

2025 Qualified Agricultural Exemption Application 

100% of the square feet of the parcel acreage, including the building, parking, and 

improvements, is dedicated to and used for growing plants, an agricultural use.

61152490.3 

Appendix 2

Assessing Department 

52700 Van Dyke Avenue 

Shelby Township, MI 48316-3572 

Phone (586) 731-5910 

Fax (586) 254-3713 

assessing@shelbytwp.org 

www.shelbytwp.org 

“Chartered 1° 

July 3,2025 

Berishaj Investments LLC 

5232 22 Mile Rd 

Shelby Twp, MI 48317 

Parcel Number: 23-07-24-427-009 

Property Address: 15048 Commercial Dr 

Property Class: 301 (Industrial Improved) 

Dear Shelby Township Property Owner: 

The Shelby Township Assessing Department received the Qualified Agricultural Exemption 

from Some School Operating Taxes claim for the property referenced above on May 1, 2025. 

This claim has been denied for 2025 because the Township Assessor has been unable, after 

repeated attempts to contact the property owner as well as through their legal representatives, to 

establish if there is an “agricultural use” taking place at this location as required by statute. 

You may appeal this denial in writing only to the 2025 July Board of Review which will take 

place on Tuesday July 22, 2025. 

If you have any questions about these issues, please contact me 

directly at 

mschmidt@shelb 

Jorg 

or at (586) 803-2000. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

ats 

= 

Matthew Schmidt 

Township Assessor

Assessing Department 

Township Hall 

~:~ 

Lower Level 

52700 Van Dyke Ave. 

Shelby Township, MI 48316 

METROPLEX MI 480 

"fens 

$0.69° 

3 JUL 2025 PM 10 LThor ass 

028W0002312048 

2000451049 

ZIP 48304 

Jackie J. Cook, Esq. 

Honigman LLP 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

61152490.3 

Appendix 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

 

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 

 

 

IIP-MI 4 LLC and LivWell Michigan LLC, 

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 Petitioner, 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

 

City of Warren, 

 

 Case Type: Qualified Agricultural 

 Respondent. 

 

 Exemption 

 

 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

July 9, 2024 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

James Kane, Jimmy Kane 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Kelsea Melcher 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

Parcel No. 12-13-35-301-011 is entitled to a Qualified Agricultural Exemption (QAE) 

under MCL 211.7ee. As a result, the property has a QAE of 80% for the 2023 tax year. 

 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Respondent’s assessor denied Petitioner’s exemption application on May 12, 2023. 

 

Respondent upheld the QAE assessor denial at its 2023 December Board of Review 

(BOR). 

 

Petitioner filed a Petition with the Tribunal on January 15, 2024, and Respondent filed 

an Answer on February 20, 2024. 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether the subject property is qualified to receive a QAE 

under MCL 211.7ee. 

 

MCL 211.7ee provides as follows: 

(1) Qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local 

school district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 2 of 15 

section 1211 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1211, 

according to the provisions of this section. 

(2) Qualified agricultural property that is classified as agricultural under 

section 34c is exempt under subsection (1) and the owner is not required 

to file an affidavit claiming an exemption with the local tax collecting unit 

unless requested by the assessor to determine whether the property 

includes structures that are not exempt under this section. To claim an 

exemption under subsection (1) for qualified agricultural property that is 

not classified as agricultural under section 34c, the owner shall file an 

affidavit claiming the exemption with the local tax collecting unit by May 1. 

. . . 

(4) . . . [U]pon receipt of an affidavit filed under subsection (2) for property 

not classified as agricultural, the assessor shall determine if the property is 

qualified agricultural property and if so shall exempt the property from the 

collection of the tax as provided in subsection (1) until December 31 of the 

year in which the property is no longer qualified agricultural property as 

defined in section 7dd. . . . 

(6) An owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for 

which an exemption was not on the tax roll may file an appeal with the 

July or December board of review in the year the exemption was claimed 

or the immediately succeeding year. An owner of property that is qualified 

agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was denied by the 

assessor in the year the affidavit was filed, may file an appeal with the July 

board of review for summer taxes or, if there is not a summer levy of 

school operating taxes, with the December board of review. 

(7) If the assessor of the local tax collecting unit believes that the property 

for which an exemption has been granted is not qualified agricultural 

property, the assessor may deny or modify an existing exemption by 

notifying the owner in writing at the time required for providing a notice 

under section 24c. A taxpayer may appeal the assessor's determination to 

the board of review meeting under section 30. A decision of the board of 

review may be appealed to the residential and small claims division of the 

Michigan tax tribunal. 

Qualified agricultural property is defined as 

[U]noccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or 

other unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property 

devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in section 36101 of the 

natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 

324.36101. Related buildings include a residence occupied by a person 

employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 3 of 15 

claimed a principal residence exemption on other property. Property used 

for commercial storage, commercial processing, commercial distribution, 

commercial marketing, or commercial shipping operations or other 

commercial or industrial purposes is not qualified agricultural property. A 

parcel of property is devoted primarily to agricultural use only if more than 

50% of the parcel's acreage is devoted to agricultural use. An owner shall 

not receive an exemption for that portion of the total state equalized 

valuation of the property that is used for a commercial or industrial 

purpose or that is a residence that is not a related building.1 

MCL 324.36101(b) defines “agricultural use” as follows: 

 

the production of plants and animals useful to humans, including forages 

and sod crops; grains, feed crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy 

products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including breeding and 

grazing of cattle, swine, captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; 

herbs; flowers; seeds; grasses; nursery stock; fruits; vegetables; maple 

syrup production; Christmas trees; and other similar uses and activities. 

Agricultural use includes use in a federal acreage set-aside program or a 

federal conservation reserve program. Agricultural use does not include 

the management and harvesting of a woodlot. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 

 

1. Evidence, filed on January 15, 2024: 

a. 2023 December BOR Change Notice 

2. Evidence, filed on June 18, 2024: 

a. Letter to Assessor 

b. Petitioner’s exemption affidavit and certification of mailing 

c. Assessor denial letter 

d. Letter to BOR 

e. BOR petition, attached brief, and exhibits, including previously submitted 

evidence 

f. MCL 211.7ee 

g. MCL 211.7dd 

h. MCL 324.36101 

i. Receipt of mailing to December BOR 

j. Facility licenses 

k. Previously submitted evidence 

l. Receipt of mailing 

m. Licenses 

 

1 MCL 211.7dd(d).

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 4 of 15 

 

3. Evidence, filed on July 2, 2024: 

a. Subject photos 

4. Rebuttal evidence., filed on July 7, 2024: 

a. Subject photos and map 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. There was no objection to Petitioner’s 

untimely evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends that the subject is 

approximately 200,000 square feet. It was recently rehabilitated to convert two old 

industrial buildings into a single, larger building designed to grow plants throughout the 

year. Petitioner is licensed by Respondent as a Growing Establishment and has been 

granted numerous Class C Growing Licenses by the State of Michigan. 

 

Petitioner contends that the subject qualifies for the qualified agricultural exemption. 

The affidavit was filed on April 29, 2023, and it was denied on May 12, 2023. The 

December BOR denied the request on December 12, 2023. 

 

Petitioner contends that the subject meets the required definitions of “agricultural use” 

under MCL 324.36101(b) and of “qualified agricultural property” under MCL 211.7dd(d). 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that, with respect to the jurisdictional 

issue, this filing began with the assessor denial. The denial indicated that the taxpayer 

had the right to appeal to the July or December BOR, and the taxpayer relied on those 

appeal rights. With respect to MCL 211.7ee(6), the first sentence indicates that if an 

applicant did not receive the exemption, the appeal may be filed with the July or 

December BOR in the year the exemption is claimed or the succeeding year. Petitioner 

claimed the exemption on May 1, 2023 and then went to the July or December BOR as 

stated in statute. The second sentence limits the appeal due to certain school taxes, 

and that takes off the December BOR option for the preceding year. Petitioner believes 

the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The BOR notice was issued December 12, 2023, and the 

appeal was filed with the Tribunal on January 15, 2024, within 34 days of the appeal. 

 

With respect to the exemption, Petitioner contends that MCL 211.7ee(1) permits the 

qualified agricultural exemption to be given to a property classified as agricultural or to a 

property devoted primarily to agricultural use. An affidavit claiming the property as 

qualified agricultural property must be filed. Petitioner relied on the definition under 

MCL 211.7dd(d), stating qualified agricultural property is unoccupied property and 

related buildings devoted primarily to agricultural use under MCL 324.36101. That 

subsection states that agricultural use is defined as the production of plants and animals 

useful to humans. The definition specifically excludes the harvesting of woodlots, which 

Petitioner contends is evidence that the Legislature chose not to exclude cannabis. 

Respondent pointed out that there is an exclusion for commercial activity, but Petitioner 

contends that notably absent is commercial production. If someone tries to claim

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 5 of 15 

qualified agricultural exemption, they are denied because it is not commercial activity, 

such as raising horses on a farm. 

Petitioner submitted exhibits in support of their position. They include licenses from the 

State and City for the commercial growing operation. Petitioner is licensed to grow 

cannabis for both medical and adult use. Everything used to grow and package is in the 

facility. There is 300,000 square feet of land containing 200,000 square feet of 

improvements, as well as a parking lot and landscaping. The entire property is devoted 

to growing cannabis. Petitioner refers to Bates page 000177, which is a map of the 

business. It includes the square footage of every room. Rooms 37, 38, and 39 are 

flower rooms. Rooms 10 and 9 are vegetation rooms. Room 7 is the mother room. 

Plants in the mother room are kept in summer conditions and do not flower. Stems are 

taken from those plants and taken to room 8 to create clones, which controls the quality 

of the product. The clones from room 8 are moved to one of three vegetation rooms, 

which are rooms 9, 10, and 11. The flowers are in all rooms to the left of rooms 7 and 

11, which are rooms 12 through 20 and 21 through 24. Those rooms are 100% 

dedicated to growing plants. Left of 21 are the water and fertilization rooms. These are 

used to feed nutrients to the plants. Each plant has a barcode and is tracked for 

regulatory purposes. Rooms 49 and 50 are the trim rooms. Once harvested, plants are 

brought to the low-humidity state. Plants are cut to hang and dry in rooms 40 through 

46 and 47 & 48. The trim room is where the flowers are removed from stems, leaves 

are removed, and the product is prepared for packaging. The remaining rooms have no 

plants. They are used to get the product into packaging and then warehoused prior to 

being shipped out. Nothing here occurs for a third party. There are only plants in the 

room. There are no retail operations at the subject property. It is solely devoted to 

plant production. The tiny rooms above rooms 40 to 46 are for waste product, where 

extraction occurs. 

 

Petitioner contends there are a number of court cases on agricultural classification 

stating that cannabis is a plant and for agricultural use. Further, Petitioner contends 

that, under Small Claims rules, the subsequent year should be added to this appeal. 

 

On rebuttal, Petitioner contends that the subject photos do reflect the condition of the 

property as of December 31, 2022. Petitioner’s representative stated he toured the 

facility in 2023 and that they were reflective of its state at that time. The facility can 

have six crops in a year, as opposed to one crop using land outside. 

 

With respect to Small Claims, Petitioner contends that the Tribunal required the appeal 

to be filed in Small Claims, and there was no option to file this claim in the Entire 

Tribunal. Respondent should have raised that issue prior to hearing. Further, when 

Respondent did not object to Petitioner’s jurisdiction at the BOR, that issue was waived. 

Petitioner’s appeal to the December 2023 BOR was timely submitted, the BOR 

accepted jurisdiction but denied the exemption on the basis of the law. Jurisdiction 

should have been raised then.

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 6 of 15 

To summarize, Petitioner contends that the Tribunal has jurisdiction because the BOR 

accepted the appeal, but even if not, the Tribunal has jurisdiction from equitable 

estoppel due to the notice, and even still if not, the issue was waived. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence: 

 

Respondent offered the following exhibits: 

 

1. Evidence, filed on June 18, 2024: 

a. Brief in support 

b. Subject photos 

c. Grower’s licenses 

d. Michigan Medical Marihuana Act excerpts 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Respondent contends that the Tribunal 

lacks jurisdiction over this case under MCL 205.735a because Petitioner did not appeal 

the assessor denial to the July BOR as required by MLC 211.7ee(6). Respondent 

contends that the December BOR lacked authority to hear Petitioner’s case because 

Respondent levied school operating tax with its summer tax levy in 2023. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction 

because the assessor denial was appealed to the December BOR under MCL 

211.7ee(6) but was required to be appealed to the July BOR because Respondent 

levies a school operating tax in the summer. Further, this appeal is in the Small Claims 

division, but the subject is classified industrial under MCL 211.34c and should not be 

permitted in the Small Claims division. 

 

Respondent contends that the subject is not agricultural but instead is a commercial 

production facility. The pictures from June 28, 2024 are not relevant as of tax day. 

Further, the subject is occupied. It is used as a growing facility. Growing marijuana is 

not an agricultural activity under Michigan statute. By statute, 50% of the acreage must 

be used for agricultural purposes. Respondent is unsure how much acreage the subject 

has, but it cannot be argued that it is unoccupied. 

 

On rebuttal, Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot waive or invoke jurisdiction 

not granted by statute and relies on Proquest v Ypsilanti Township.2 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

 

2 ProQuest LLC v Ypsilanti Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued 

November 30, 2023 (Docket No 362977).

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 7 of 15 

1. The subject property is located at 21590 Hoover Rd., City of Warren, Macomb 

County. 

2. The subject property is classified as industrial. 

3. Petitioner owns the subject property. 

4. Petitioner uses the subject property for cultivating and packaging both medical 

and adult-use marijuana. 

5. Petitioner is licensed by the State of Michigan and by Respondent to grow 

marijuana. 

6. The property did not have a QAE for prior tax years. 

7. Petitioner filed the exemption application for the tax year 2023 with Respondent’s 

assessor on or about April 29, 2023. 

8. The assessor issued a decision denying the exemption claim on May 12, 2023. 

9. The assessor denial decision indicates that a “taxpayer who timely and properly 

filed Form 2599 may appeal an assessor’s denial of the Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption for the 2023 assessment year to the July or December 

Board of Review under MCL 211.7ee.” 

10. Petitioner appealed the assessor denial to Respondent’s 2023 December BOR. 

11. The December BOR denied the exemption claim on a denial form dated 

December 22, 2022.3 

12. The December BOR exemption denial indicates that the decision may be 

appealed to the Tribunal within 35 days of the date of the decision. 

13. Petitioner appealed to the Tribunal on January 15, 2024, or 24 days after the 

date of the denial. 

14. Respondent levied a school operating tax on its 2023 summer tax levy. 

15. More than 50% of the subject property was devoted to agricultural use for the tax 

year at issue. 

16. The building is related to the agricultural purpose of the property. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

The issue of the exemption qualification is preceded by the issue of jurisdiction, and the 

issue of jurisdiction is preceded by whether this determination is made in the correct 

division of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. At hearing, Respondent raised the issue that this 

hearing should be held in the Entire Tribunal division because the subject property is 

classified industrial. Respondent relied on MCL 205.762, which states in part: 

 

The residential property and small claims division . . . has jurisdiction over 

a proceeding, otherwise cognizable by the tribunal, in which residential 

property is exclusively involved. Property other than residential property 

may be included in a proceeding before the residential property and small 

 

3 The date appears to be entered in error, and the greater weight of the record supports a finding that the 

exemption was denied on December 22, 2023.

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 8 of 15 

claims division if the amount of that property's taxable value or state 

equalized valuation in dispute is not more than $100,000.00. . ..4 

 

In this case, the TV and SEV in dispute is $0, as the case relates solely to the claim of 

the qualified agricultural exemption. The subject exemption affects the levied school 

operating millage of a property and reduces taxes through a millage reduction but does 

not affect the TV or SEV. Further, the Tax Tribunal Act goes on to state: 

 

The residential property and small claims division . . . has exclusive 

jurisdiction over an appeal of a final determination of a claim for exemption 

of a principal residence by the department of treasury or of qualified 

agricultural property under the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, 

MCL 211.1 to 211.157, from taxes levied under section 1211 of the 

revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1211.5 

 

This case is therefore properly pending in the Small Claims division. 

 

Next, the issue is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. The first question 

of jurisdiction is whether Petitioner properly invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under 

statute. The following facts are relevant in the determination of jurisdiction. The subject 

property did not receive a qualified agricultural exemption in prior tax years. Petitioner’s 

application was submitted to Respondent’s assessor on or about April 29, 2023. The 

assessor denied the exemption request on May 12, 2023, and that denial was sent to 

Petitioner. In 2023, Respondent issued a school operating levy on its summer tax bill. 

Petitioner appealed the assessor’s denial to Respondent’s 2023 December BOR. 

 

While agreeing to the foregoing, the parties disagree as to the resulting proper 

interpretation of MCL 211.7ee(6), which states: 

 

An owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for 

which an exemption was not on the tax roll may file an appeal with the 

July or December board of review in the year the exemption was claimed 

or the immediately succeeding year. An owner of property that is qualified 

agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was denied by the 

assessor in the year the affidavit was filed, may file an appeal with the July 

board of review for summer taxes or, if there is not a summer levy of 

school operating taxes, with the December board of review. 

 

Petitioner contends that this subsection means that it properly invoked the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction under the first section of section 6 and that the second sentence only 

precludes it from requesting the exemption at the subsequent-year’s (2024) December 

BOR. The Tribunal disagrees. The second sentence is plainly delineated by the 

inclusion of the conditions that it applies to claims which were denied by the assessor 

for the year they were filed and for jurisdictions which levy a school operating tax 

 

4 MCL 205.762(1). 

5 MCL 205.762a(1).

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 9 of 15 

millage in the summer. Both facts are undisputed in this case. By statute, Petitioner 

was required to appeal the assessor denial to the 2023 July BOR and failed to do so. 

The Tribunal therefore finds that Petitioner failed to properly invoke the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction under statute. 

 

Petitioner also claims that that the BOR accepted the appeal and that the issue of 

jurisdiction was waived. This is not a proper argument because it is equitable in nature, 

and the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory 

requirement or filing deadline.6 The jurisdiction of the BOR (MCL 211.7ee(6); MCL 

211.53b) and of the Tribunal (MCL 205.735a; MCL 205.762a(3)) over this nature of 

claim are set by statute. Defects in subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and 

may be raised at any time.7 This portion of Petitioner’s argument is not supported by 

case law and is denied. 

 

Petitioner also contends that the Tribunal should have jurisdiction in this case due to 

lack of proper notice. The Michigan Court of Appeals recently summarized the issue of 

notice with respect to tax cases as follows: 

 

The United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee that no person 

shall be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 

U.S. Const., Am. XIV, section 1; Const 1963, art 1, section 17. “The 

owner of real property is entitled to the protection of constitutional due 

process with respect to the assessment and collection of property taxes.” 

Spranger [v City of Warren], 308 Mich App [477] at 482-483. “An 

elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any 

proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, 

under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 

of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 

Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 314; 70 S Ct 

652; 94 L Ed 865 (1950). Indeed, “[t]he ‘opportunity to be heard’ includes 

the right to notice of that opportunity.” Dow v State, 396 Mich 192, 205; 

240 NW2d 450 (1976). “The notice must be of such nature as reasonably 

to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time 

for those interested to make their appearance.” Mullane, 339 US at 314. 

Furthermore, “the means employed to notify interested parties must be 

more than a mere gesture; they must be means that one who actually 

desires to inform the interested parties might reasonably employ to 

accomplish actual notice.” Sidun v Wayne Co Treasurer, 481 Mich 503, 

509; 751 NW2d 453 (2008), citing Mullane, 339 US at 315.8 

 

 

6.See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

7 See Electronic Data Systems Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538, 544; 656 NW2d 215, 220 (2002), 

quoting People v Erwin, 212 Mich App 55, 64 (1995). 

8 Winkler v Markey Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued August 

24, 2023 (Docket No 362586) at p 2.

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 10 of 15 

Petitioner contends that, in this case, Respondent’s assessor denial does not constitute 

effective notice. The notice was timely issued on May 12, 2023, shortly after the 

exemption claim was submitted, and clearly states that the subject parcel was denied 

for 2023. However, the Tribunal finds that the notice contains an error with respect to 

the appeal rights. It states: 

 

A taxpayer who timely and properly filed Form 2599 may appeal an 

assessor’s denial of the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption for the 

2023 assessment year to the July or December Board of Review under 

MCL 211.7ee. Board of Review denials are appealed to the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal by filing a petition within 35 days of the Board’s action. 

 

As discussed above, this appeal notice information is incorrect. Respondent knew or 

should have known that it levies a school operating millage in the summer and, 

therefore, that an assessor denial of a timely application was required to be appealed to 

the same-year July BOR. At the least, Respondent should have known that there was a 

condition in the statute with respect to the timing of millage levying that affected a 

taxpayer’s appeal rights and informed a potential appellant of that requirement. 

 

Given the plainly misleading language in the notice’s right of appeal, the Tribunal finds 

that the notice was not reasonably employed to accomplish actual notice and that 

Petitioner was deprived of a reasonable conveyance of the required information 

because notice of the right to appeal was proactively and improperly effectuated. While 

Respondent contends that the December BOR lacked statutory authority to grant the 

exemption, and the Tribunal agrees, the taxpayer was nevertheless not afforded appeal 

information upon which it could properly rely until the issuance of the BOR decision. 

Even then, Respondent’s BOR again erred in advising Petitioner of its correct appeal 

rights. By statute, the appeal was to have been filed within 30 days of the BOR 

decision.9 In this case, the appeal was in fact filed within 30 days of the December 

BOR review, as well as within 35 days under the catch-all provision of MCL 205.735a(6) 

given the lack of explicit authority of the December BOR to consider the issue. 

 

As a result of the lack of notice as explained above, Petitioner has properly invoked the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction in its 2023 tax appeal because it relied on the appeal rights stated 

in the assessor denial and appealed within 35 days of actual notice of the denial, which 

the Tribunal construes to be the date of issuance of the December BOR decision. 

Alternatively, Petitioner appealed within 30 days of the December BOR decision. 

 

The final jurisdictional issue to resolve is whether 2024 should be included in this 

appeal. Petitioner argued at hearing that tax year 2024 should be included in this 

appeal. Petitioner filed a motion to amend to add the 2024 tax year to this appeal on 

May 30, 2024. On May 31, 2024, the Tribunal issued a Notice of No Action with respect 

to that appeal. The motion does not include any reference to MCL 211.7ee, which is 

the sole issue in dispute in this case. Further, while the motion contends that an appeal 

was made to Respondent’s 2024 March BOR, the Tribunal finds that the March BOR 

 

9 MCL 205.762a(3).

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 11 of 15 

lacked authority to consider a 2024 QAE, regardless of whether there was a 2024 

assessor denial prior to the BOR appeal. There is only one scenario by statute for 

which the March BOR may acquire jurisdiction over a QAE claim. That scenario 

involves an assessor denial of an existing exemption under MCL 211.7ee(7), but there 

was no existing exemption for the assessor to deny in 2024. The hearing in this case 

was held prior to the July BOR. The exclusion of the 2024 tax year was appropriate. 

Further, Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration following the Notice of No 

Action within 21 days as required by Tribunal rules.10 The Tribunal finds that 2024 is 

therefore properly excluded under both statute and the law of the case. 

 

Having determined that its jurisdiction is properly pending for this case and in this 

division, but only for tax year 2023, the Tribunal now turns to the issue at hand. It is 

undisputed that Petitioner owns the subject property and timely claimed the exemption 

and that the subject was not classified as agricultural property. The issue is whether the 

subject property was primarily devoted to agricultural use in 2023. Petitioner’s evidence 

demonstrates that the subject property is comprised primarily of a building but also 

features a parking lot and minor exterior features such as landscaping. It is not 

disputed that Petitioner uses the subject property for the cultivating and packaging of 

both medical and adult-use marijuana. It is also not disputed that no retail sales occur 

at the subject property. 

 

Petitioner contends that the subject is primarily used for agricultural purposes and relies 

on the definition of agricultural use under MCL 324.36101(b). Respondent contends 

that Petitioner does not qualify under the portion of MCL 211.7dd(d) that states: 

 

Property used for commercial storage, commercial processing, 

commercial distribution, commercial marketing, or commercial shipping 

operations or other commercial or industrial purposes is not qualified 

agricultural property. A parcel of property is devoted primarily to 

agricultural use only if more than 50% of the parcel's acreage is devoted 

to agricultural use. An owner shall not receive an exemption for that 

portion of the total state equalized valuation of the property that is used for 

a commercial or industrial purpose or that is a residence that is not a 

related building. 

 

The Tribunal is therefore left to discern to what extent the subject is used for the 

production of plants and to what extent it is used for commercial processing or other 

commercial purposes. Petitioner presented unrebutted and detailed testimony, 

supported by photos, of the subject’s room-by-room use. Petitioner submitted a map of 

the building and supported the map with photos. The map includes a room-by-room 

square footage calculation for the subject property and constitutes the best evidence on 

the record apportioning Petitioner’s use activities by a calculable size determinator. 

Calculations for common areas such as land, the parking lot, hallways, restrooms, and 

janitorial space are not included in the calculation as those areas provide benefits to 

both the agricultural and non-agricultural portion of the property. The Tribunal assigned 

 

10 TTR 257.

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 12 of 15 

the following square footages into the designated apportionments based on testimony 

and evidence: 

 

Location

SF in Ag Use

SF Not in Ag Use

Flower Room (37)

2,308

0

Flower Room 38

2,322

0

Flower Room 39

2,322

0

Vegetation Room 10

4,858

0

Vegetation Room 9

10,303

0

Vestibule in Room 9

0

176 

Office 212

0

141

Office 213

0

147

Office 214

0

147

Office 215

0

144

Work Area 210

0

1,272

Conference 221

0

520

Storage 222

0

118

IT Room 223

0

181

Break Room 224

0

191

Office 227

0

156

Office 229

0

128

Huddle 230

0

230

Huddle 231

0

231

Mothers’ Room (7)

3,808

0

Clone Room (8)

484

0

Plant and Vessel 

Washing

484 

0 

Media Prep 113

0

792

Mother Block 112

0

161

Transfer Room 111

0

1,026

Vegetation Room 11

8,378

0

Flower Room 12

2,755

0

Flower Room 13

2,719

0

Flower Room 14

2,880

0

Flower Room 15

2,872

0

Flower Room 16

2,880

0

Flower Room 17

2,849

0

Flower Room 18

3,813

0

Flower Room 19

3,808

0

Flower Room 20

3,808

0

Flower Room 21

3,528

0

Flower Room 22

3,528

0

Flower Room 23

3,528

0

Flower Room 24

3,879

0

Phase 0

0

3,100

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 13 of 15 

Water Storage 118

1,362

0

Fertilizer 123

1,273

0

Rockwool 121

0

196

Work 122

0

133

Wash 124

0

601

Cultivation Control Room 

125G

0 

125 

Irrigation Work Room 125

0

146

IPM Mixing 129

0

887

Uniform 130G

0

269

Airlock 131G

0

90

Entrance/Security 157

0

915

Coat Room 158

0

360

Break Room 127G

0

1,486

Air Lock 128G

0

132

Uniform 166

0

144

Air Lock 158G

0

250

Sanitation Room 132G

0

146

Primary Packaging 137G

0

158

Quarantine Hold 138G

0

164

Air Lock 154G

0

23

Dry Room 133G

0

216

Work Area 139G

0

451

Packaging 134G

0

296

M&E Room 140G

0

654

Warehouse Storage 

135G

0 

347 

Air Lock 136G

0

23

Tube Packaging 141G

0

353

Cure 2 (40-46)

2,583

0

Cure Sorting 115G

0

295

Cure 1 (47-48)

841

0

Post Trim (50)

0

1,496

Willow 113G

0

221

Dry Trim 114G

0

297

Quarantine Hold 112G

0

284

Wash Bay 106G

0

309

Freeze Dry 107G

0

543

Joint Grinding 108G

0

201

Joint Roll 110G

0

266

Joint Pack 111G

0

249

GMP Packaging 117G

0

2,040

Secondary Warehouse 

120G

0 

544 

Sally Port Bay 1 

0

584

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 14 of 15 

Sally Port Bay 2

0

602

Finished Goods/ 

Distribution 119G

0 

2,207 

Air Lock 118G

0

21

Huddle Room 101G

0

113

Product Hold 102G

0

133

Office 103G

0

180

Equipment 

Drying/Storage 104G

0 

416 

Flower Room (25)

4,730

0

Flower Room (26)

3,050

0

Flower Room (27)

3,103

0

Flower Room (28)

3,310

0

Flower Room (29)

3,310

0

Flower Room (30)

3,307

0

Flower Room (32)

2,600

0

Flower Room (33)

2,708

0

Flower Room (34)

2,688

0

Flower Room (35)

2,657

0

Flower Room (36)

2,708

0

 

Trim Room (49) is a non-agricultural room excluded from the calculation. Flower Room 

(31) is an agricultural room excluded from the calculation. These rooms were excluded 

from the calculation because the map did not include the square footage for those 

rooms. Exclusion of these two rooms shall not affect the calculation determination 

because, while they would rightfully be included, the Tribunal finds that their exclusion 

shall mostly offset one another and further shall not materially affect the final 

determination of exemption qualification. The map is not found to be to scale but 

appropriately demonstrates the size of those two rooms to not be a factor in altering the 

following calculation. 

 

The calculated total square footage is 118,344 for the agricultural rooms and 28,427 for 

the non-agricultural rooms serving the commercial purpose of the business. The total 

square footage for calculation purposes is 146,771, of which 80.63% is for agricultural 

purposes and 19.37% is for non-agricultural purposes. The Tribunal must note that the 

definition of qualified agricultural exemption requires the percentage apportionment to 

be based on state equalized value and not square footage. Here, the use of square 

footage is an appropriate unit of measure to equivocate state equalized value. Neither 

party submitted any evidence to indicate that different portions of the subject’s gross 

area support different values. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal finds 

that the use of square footage adequately reflects the required apportionment under 

state equalized value. 

 

As a result, the property is found to be primarily devoted to agricultural use for the tax 

year at issue under MCL 211.7dd(d). Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to the

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 15 of 15 

QAE for tax year 2023 at an 80% rate. The property is disqualified from receiving the 

exemption at a higher rate because a portion of it is used for a commercial purpose. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken 

based on this decision. 

After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the 

exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: 

 

a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final 

Decision; 

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final 

Decision; or 

c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and order a rehearing or such other action 

as is necessary and appropriate. 

 

EXCEPTIONS 

 

The parties have 20 days from the below “Date Entered by Tribunal” to notify the 

Tribunal and the opposing party in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not 

agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., 

exceptions). Exceptions are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing 

and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. 

 

The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions were mailed to that party 

to file a written response to the exceptions. 

 

A copy of a party’s written exceptions or response must be sent by mail or electronic 

service, if agreed upon by the parties, to the opposing party and proof must be 

submitted to the Tribunal that the exceptions or response were served on the opposing 

party. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _________________________________ 

Date Entered by Tribunal: August 15, 2024 

bw/jcr 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

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 

IIP-MI 4 LLC and LivWell Michigan LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on August 15, 2024. The 

POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from date of entry of this POJ 

to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if available, if they do not 

agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., 

exceptions).” 

 

On September 4, 2024, Respondent filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, 

Respondent states that the Tribunal has committed an error of law by assuming 

jurisdiction over this appeal as Petitioner was correctly informed that it had to appeal to 

the appropriate Board of Review (BOR) under MCL 211.7ee. Respondent has been 

severely prejudiced in being forced to defend claims the Tribunal has no authority to 

hear under the General Property Tax Act. If the Tribunal is able to offer Petitioner 

equitable relief and assume jurisdiction over this appeal, Respondent should at least be 

afforded notice of the Tribunal’s intent to provide such relief as well as the opportunity to 

gather and submit additional evidence in defense of such claims. If Petitioner’s appeal 

is not dismissed, a rehearing should be required, and Respondent should be allowed 90 

days to gather evidence relative to Petitioner’s Qualified Agricultural Property 

Exemption (QAE) claims. Further, the Tribunal did not consider that growing marijuana 

is not an agricultural use under MCL 324.36101(b), as it is clear that marijuana 

production is not the type of plant production intended to be encompassed under that 

statute. It is not qualified agricultural property under MCL 211.dd(d) and not exempt 

under MCL 211.ee. It is a commercial activity which the legislature took care to specify 

was not agriculture use but commercial activity, subject to commercial licensing. 

Respondent issued licensing based on the indication that such activities would provide 

considerable tax revenue. Respondent states that there is good cause to modify the 

POJ and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, or at least require a rehearing so 

that Respondent may have the opportunity to gather evidence to defend against claims 

it had no notice the Tribunal would, or could, assume jurisdiction over. 

 

On September 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a response to the exceptions. In the response, 

Petitioner states that the POJ should be upheld as Respondent failed to identify any 

mistake of fact, mistake of law, or fraud to be eligible for relief under the exceptions

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 2 of 5 

 

provisions of the Tribunal. Petitioner states that MCL 211.7ee is not a jurisdictional 

statute and does not grant or take jurisdiction from the Tribunal. Petitioner states that 

commercial production is the very essence of farming and/or agricultural operations and 

is noticeably absent from the list of exceptions in the definition of qualified agricultural 

property cited by Respondent. Respondent has not identified any provision in a statute, 

regulation, or case that suggests that growing and harvesting cannabis is not an 

agricultural use, which shows that the legislature did not intend to exclude the 

production of cannabis as an agricultural use. Petitioner states that cannabis is a 

flower, and flowers are listed as one of the many crops included in the definition of 

agricultural use in MCL 324.36101(b). 

 

The Tribunal has considered the exceptions, the response, and the case file and finds 

that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and 

evidence submitted in the rendering of the POJ. Specifically, the Tribunal finds the POJ 

provided a very thorough analysis of the issues involved in this appeal. On the 

jurisdiction issue, while Petitioner was required to appeal to the July BOR under MCL 

211.7ee(6), the notice of right of appeal provided to Petitioner was ineffective and 

misleading as it stated that Petitioner could appeal the assessor’s denial of the QAE for 

the 2023 tax year to either the July or December BOR. Because the notice also 

mentioned MCL 211.7ee(6) does not negate the fact that it mislead Petitioner into 

believing it could appeal to either the July or December BOR. The Tribunal agrees with 

the POJ that Petitioner’s reliance on incorrect information in the notice invoked the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the 2023 tax year only as Petitioner timely appealed the 

decision of the December 2023 BOR. The Tribunal finds this decision is supported by 

multiple of Court of Appeals cases in which the Tribunal’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction was reversed and remanded due to Petitioner receiving defective notice of 

its appeal options.1 In Kemennu v Treasury, the court stated: “The United States 

Supreme Court recently has held that “due process requires the government to provide 

‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 

of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 

objections.’” 2 Here, Petitioner chose to present its objections to the QAE denial at 

Respondent’s December BOR based on the information in the denial notice. 

Respondent’s reliance on ProQuest LLC v Twp of Ypsilanti3 is misplaced, as in that 

case the petitioner was not relying on a misleading notice of its appeal rights when it 

missed an application deadline, rather the error was the petitioner’s alone due to lack of 

correct postage. 

 

Regarding Respondent’s argument that the subject property does not meet the 

definition of agricultural use under MCL 324.36101(b), the statute states that 

“agricultural use" means the production of plants and animals useful to humans. While 

 

1 See Geldhof Enterprises Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 

Appeals, issued December 10, 2013 (Docket No. 313142); Winkler v Markey Twp, unpublished per 

curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued August 24, 2023 (Docket No 362586); and 

Kemennu v Treasury, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 15, 2023 

(Docket No. 362037). 

2 Kemennu v Treasury. 

3 ProQuest LLC v Twp of Ypsilanti, ___ Mich ___; 7NW3d 530 (2024).

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 3 of 5 

 

the statute does not specifically include marijuana, it also does not specifically exclude 

marijuana. If marijuana was not the type of plant intended to be included under this 

definition as Respondent states, then the legislature would have specifically excluded it. 

Growing of marijuana plants is not specifically excluded in either MCL 211.7dd(d), MCL 

211.7ee, or MCL 324.36101(b). The evidence on record supports that plants are grown 

at the subject property and the Tribunal finds that the licensure for growing marijuana 

supports its usefulness to humans. Respondent’s argument that the growing of 

marijuana is a commercial activity could apply to the growing of any type of plants or 

flowers of which the harvested product is eventually sold, in which case, the only time a 

QAE would be granted is if the agricultural use is for the owner’s personal consumption. 

 

Regarding Respondent’s argument that a rehearing should be scheduled, to allow 

Respondent time to prepare to address the QAE claim, Respondent has had knowledge 

of the QAE appeal since the petition was filed in this case on January 15, 2024. The 

only issue appealed was the denial of the QAE for the subject property. If Respondent 

thought this case could be dismissed based on the jurisdiction issue, Respondent could 

have filed a motion to dismiss prior to the hearing but chose not to do so. As such, 

Respondent’s argument is without merit. 

 

Given the above, Respondent failed to show good cause to justify modifying the POJ or 

granting a rehearing.4 As such, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final 

decision in this case.5 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a 

result, Parcel No. 12-13-35-301-011 is entitled to a Qualified Agricultural Exemption 

under MCL 211.7ee of 80% for the 2023 tax year. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax year at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected 

to reflect the property’s Qualified Agricultural Exemption for the tax year at issue as 

provided in this Final Opinion and Judgment within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion 

and Judgment. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 

days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall 

include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty 

and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the 

amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by 

the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to 

the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A 

sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any 

time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

 

4 See MCL 205.762. 

5 See MCL 205.726.

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 4 of 5 

 

Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through 

June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 

2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the 

rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 

8.25%, (v) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, and 

(vi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%. 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

 

 

 

Entered: October 8, 2024 

ssm/kac

MTT Docket No. 24-000081 

Page 5 of 5 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

61152490.3 

Appendix 4

April 29, 2025 

Re: 

TAXPAYER LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I'am the Managing Member of Berishaj Investments, LLC, which owns the real property in Shelby 

Township identified as parcel no. 23-07-24-427-010, located at 15090 Commercial Drive, and also owns 

the 

real property identified 

as parcel 

no. 23-07-24-427-009, located 

at 15048 Commercial Drive 

(collectively, the “property™). 

Please be advised that the current tenant, Shelby V Holdings, LLC has retained the following 

counsel to represent them in connection with obtaining current and historical assessment information, 

discussing the current and historical assessments with your office, and securing a protest before the March, 

July, and/or December Boards of Review, 

if necessary, 

to protest valuation, taxable status, and/or 

classification for the property for tax years 2025 and 2026: 

Jackie J. Cook 

Honigman LLP 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 566-8474 

jcook@honigman.com 

60336795.1

If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this letter of authorization, 

please email me at zeffconcrete@comcast.net. 

Very truly yours, 

I 

CP 

Zef Berishaj 

As Managing Member of 

Berishaj Investments, LLC 

60336795.1

61152490.3 

Appendix 5

Michigan Department of Treasury

618 (Rev. 11-12)

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal

or the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review.

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT

Petition to Board of Review

The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified 

agricultural property exemption of the following described property:

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type)

Petitioner's Name (If Other than Owner. Please Print or Type)

Property Identified (Parcel code required. Property address & legal description optional)

Protested Item

Assessed Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Classification

 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT

Assessed Amount

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Year

2. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION

(Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in 

accordance with Section 211.34c of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular 

classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.)

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll

Classification should be (check one of the following):

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Timber Cutover

Developmental

Utility (Personal Property Only)

3. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY

(If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural 

property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT 

UPON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption 

denied)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if full 

exemption requested)

4. REASON FOR PROTEST

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural property exemption

CERTIFICATION

(Complete this section for a protest of assessed value and/or tentative taxable value)

Signature

Date

Address

Phone Number

L-4035

www.michigan.gov/treasury

Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption

Township or City

County

Reset Form

Berishaj Investments LLC

Shelby Township

Macomb

Parcel No. 23-07-24-427-009, located at 15048 Commercial Drive



0

100

The real property is devoted primarily to agriculatural use, so it qualifies for QAE. See the attached Board of Review

protest letter

7/17/2025

39400 Woodward Ave, Suite 101, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

(248) 566-8474

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes.

Petition Number

Parcel Code

1. ASSESSED VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Assessed Value Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From ___________________ to ________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

3. CLASSIFICATION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Classification Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Exemption Request Denied

Exemption percent modified from _____________% to _____________%

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review

Board of Review Secretary Signature

Date

5. ADJOURNMENT

Form 618, Page 2

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, 

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and 

Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission 

at P.O. Box 30471, Lansing, MI 48909 by June 30.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909 by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form 

approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, 

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultural 

Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

61762218.1 

Appendix B

PARCEL #: 

 23-07-24-427-009 

2025 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY 

1 

JULY BOARD OF REVIEW CORRECTIONS 

of 1 

DATE: 

7/22/2025 

SCHOOL DISTRICT: 50210 - Utica 

NAME: Berisha] Investments LLC 

ADDRESS: 5232 22 Mile 

Shelby Township, MI 48317 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

15048 Commercial Drive 

YEAR: 

2025 

CLASSIFICATION: 301 Industrial Real 

ORIGINAL 

REVISED 

ASSESSED: 

ASSESSED: 

LAND 

133,400 

LAND 

< 

BLDG 

1,206,100 

BLDG 

< 

TOTAL 

1,339,500 

TOTAL 

0< 

CAPPED: 

1,057,496 

CAPPED: 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

TAXABLE: 

1,057,496 

TAXABLE: 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

PRE: 

0% 

PRE: 

2025 CALC REVIEW: 

[] 

ADDITIONS 

[NEW 

[JLOSSES 

[] 

LOSS 

[1 NONE 

TTT 

REASON FOR CHANGE 

APPROVED 

DENIED 

ASSESSOR REC 

BOR MEMBERS: 

fh {hal 

a [| 

v4 

CLERICAL ERROR 

a 

{ 

a 

Oo 

MUTUAL MISTAKE OF 

id 

ZZ 

INTHE FILING OF 

N 

( 

Ol 

0 

EXEMPTION 

POVERTY 

RECAP 

VETERANS 

EXEMPTION 

EXPLANATION Petitioner requesting a Qualified Agriculture Exemption 

NO Ey) Devce 

ps 70 

wherher PROPECIN, 73 

devoren 

YL mpliny 

TO 

P9Lrenirene use, 

ent >) 

entry review 

letter.

← View full record