Answer and Affirmative Defenses - East Jordan Foundry v Warner Twp. - 10.9.26.pdf
East Jordan Foundry LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Warner Respondent, Michigan Department Of Treasury Intervening Respondent · 26-001195-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EAST JORDAN FOUNDRY, LLC, Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 26-001195-TT WARNER TOWNSHIP, Respondent, and THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Intervenor-Respondent. _____________________________________________________________________________/ Edward U. Blanchard Benjamin Buoscio Deloitte Tax, LLP Representatives for Petitioner 2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 1600 Dallas, TX 75201 (313) 597-4765 Robert E. Thall (P46421) Bauckham, Thall, Seeber, Kaufman & Koches, P.C. Attorney for Respondent 470 W. Centre Ave., Suite A Portage, MI 49024-5362 269-382-4500 thall@michigantownshiplaw.com B. Thomas Golden (P70822) Assistant Attorney General Revenue and Tax Division Attorney for Intervenor-Respondent P.O. Box 30754 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7584 goldent2@michigan.gov _____________________________________________________________________________/ INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY’S ANSWER TO PETITION
Page 2
2 The Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury), through its counsel, Assistant Attorney General B. Thomas Golden, states for its Response to the Petition, related to Parcel Nos. 05-15-975-001-00 and 05-15-022-003-01 (collectively, the “Subject Property”) as follows: 1. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 1 based upon the Tribunal’s online docket. 2. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 2 based upon the Tribunal’s online docket. 3. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 3. 4. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 4. 5. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 5. 6. Treasury admits that the Subject Property is located within Antrim County, but denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 and further states that its records indicate that the Subject Parcel is within the Gaylord Community School District. 7. Treasury neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 7; the bolded term “Jurisdiction” appears to be a defined term, but lacks any definition. As such, Treasury lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. Treasury admits that the parcel number 05-15-975-001-00 is at issue in this case and that parcel number 05-15-975-001-00 is classified as
Page 3
3 industrial real property. Treasury denies that parcel number 05-15-015- 003-01 is at issue in this case. Petitioner’s case caption, as well as paragraphs 11–13, identify the parcels at issue as 05-15-975-001-00 and 05-15-022-003-01. Treasury neither admits nor denies that parcel 05-15- 015-003-01 is industrial real property because Treasury lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. As to the present uses of the parcels identified in paragraph 8, Treasury lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. Treasury neither admits nor denies the allegations of this paragraph because Treasury lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 10. 11. Treasury admits the allegations in paragraph 11. 12. Treasury admits that the Petitioner’s valuation contentions are contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition, but denies that the contentions of value are supported by fact or law. 13. Treasury admits that Petitioner correctly states the values in dispute. 14. Treasury denies the allegations in paragraph 14 for the reason that they are untrue.
Page 4
4 15. No answer is required as no claims are made. To the extent an answer is required, Treasury denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. WHEREFORE, proposed Intervenor-Respondent Michigan Department of Treasury asks that this Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requested relief, affirm the assessments as lawfully determined by Warner Township and its assessor, and grant Respondents such other relief as this Tribunal deems appropriate. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Intervenor-Respondent, Michigan Department of Treasury, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, or any other relevant property or properties in the class and fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper, discriminatory, or lacks uniformity, or that there was any “loss” for the tax year at issue. 2. Treasury incorporates by reference Respondent Warner Township’s affirmative defenses as set forth in its answer to the petition. 3. Respondent Warner Township has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 4. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proof establishing the true cash value of the properties at issue in this matter.
Page 5
5 5. Treasury reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known during the course of these proceedings. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ B. Thomas Golden B. Thomas Golden (P70822) Assistant Attorney General Revenue and Tax Division Attorney for Intervenor-Respondent P.O. Box 30754 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7584 goldent2@michigan.gov Dated: October 9, 2026