26-002308 Burnside Answer.pdf

Reuben Joel Burnside Petitioner Vs. Michigan Department Of Treasury Respondent · 26-002308-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.

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REASON FOR APPEAL 

MTT Docket No. 26-002308 

VEHICLE USE TAX – Equalization MCL 205.179 

Assessment: 1989381 

REUBEN JOEL BURNSIDE, PETITIONER 

 

Filing 

The Tax Policy Division, Department of Treasury, prepares this answer in response to a 

petition filed with the Small Claims Division of the Michigan Tax Tribunal by Reuben Joel 

Burnside. (“Petitioner”). A copy of this answer has been served concurrently on the 

Petitioner. 

Petition 

Petitioner appeals the final assessment for equalization tax on the purchase of a 2019 

Ram 1500. 

Background 

Petitioner purchased a vehicle from a private seller. Upon registering the vehicle at the 

Secretary of State’s office, Petitioner claimed that the selling price of the vehicle was 

$5000, which is well below the fair market value. 

Petitioner’s Claims 

Petitioner claims that the sale included a barter agreement in which the Petitioner traded 

another vehicle to the seller as partial payment for this vehicle. 

Respondent’s Answer 

Treasury has reviewed all information supplied by Petitioner and has completed a 

thorough review of all documents. Under Michigan’s Streamlined Sales and Use Tax 

Revenue Equalization Act, the tax on the transfer of a vehicle is 6% of the retail dollar 

value of the vehicle at the time of acquisition as determined by the Department. Petitioner 

purchased a 2019 Ram 1500 from a private seller and reported a purchase price of $5000 

to the Secretary of State’s office upon registering the vehicle. The Department, utilizing 

the National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA) valuation, reported a value of 

$25,800 at the time of acquisition. 

Petitioner claims that the vehicle was purchased from a private seller and part of their 

agreement included the barter of another vehicle that Petitioner sold to the seller. 

Additionally, Petitioner claims that the vehicle had several issues including mechanical 

failures and cosmetic damage that had to be repaired and ultimately lowered the value of 

the vehicle. 

The Discovery and Tax Enforcement Division sent two inquiry letters to Petitioner advising 

of the difference in valuation. The letters give options to submit repair estimates or a 

001

written appraisal if Petitioner disagrees with the Department’s valuation and allows ample 

time to resolve the difference. Petitioner did not respond to any of the requests which 

ultimately led to the issuance of assessment number 1989381. 

Treasury reached out to Petitioner to explain the assessment and try to bring it to 

resolution. Petitioner claimed that he did not agree with the assessment, however, he did 

not have any written documentation to support the reported sale price. Additionally, 

Petitioner claimed that payment was recently submitted to avoid further collection action 

and to avoid moving forward with the hearing. Treasury moved to file a joint motion to 

withdraw, however, it was determined that the payment received on September 15, 2026, 

from Petitioner was returned by his financial institution due to nonsufficient funds and final 

assessment number 1989381 remains due in full. 

Relief 

Respondent requests the Court to uphold final assessment number 1989381 as issued. 

002

← View full record