05._Property_Tax_Appeal_Answer_Form_Valuation_Poverty_Classification.ee03d81b-257d-4b70-9ef3-af54851b1e8a.pdf
Stephen C Zimmerman, Petitioner V Township Of Holmes, Respondent · 24-003581-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 GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MOAHR DOCKET NO. 24-003581 Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Township Of Holmes (MENOMINEE) First Name Brent M.I. Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government Desjarlais Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 1800 16th Ave City or Town Menominee State Michigan ZIP Code 49858 Telephone Number 906-424-1198 Fax Number E-mail Address bpsassessing@gmail.com Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Brent M.I. Last Name Desjarlais Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) W7258 Cheese Factory Rd. City or Town Daggett State Michigan ZIP Code 49821 Telephone Number 906-424-1198 Fax Number E-mail Address bpsassessing@gmail.com Section 3: Subject Property Information Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? No Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. N/A Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review Decision, Notice of Uncapping, or Assessment Change Notice) with this Small Claims Answer, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR I would like to thank the Michigan Tax Tribunal Small Claims division for taking the time to hear this case regarding MTT Docket No. 24-003581. The prior Assessor of Record, Robert Desjarlais, passed away March 27, 2024. Although he principally handled this situation, I worked with him and am aware of the details. As such and as the current Assessor, I am acting as the Authorized Representative for the Respondent. Mr. Zimmerman’s main contention here is that the parcel’s Assessed Value was uncapped to become the same as the Taxable value. This was not the case. The Taxable value was calculated after removing the buildings which were included in years prior where they should not have been. This fact was not noticed by either the previous owner nor Assessors as all parcels and improvements involved were adjacent and under the same ownership. However, once the Assessor was made aware of this along with the property sale and a land division as part of it, he took immediate action. As shown in the attached record cards, the structures and their associated values were removed from parcel 006-004-008-00 (Attachments 2-3) and moved to the correct parcel, 006-004-002-00 (Attachments 5-6). After land analysis (Attachment 1), this led to the Assessed, State Equalized Value (SEV) and Taxable values being 76,000 (Attachment 4). The Taxable is the same as the SEV not because of an uncapping, but because the parcel’s Cap Value was 85,152 (shown on Attachment 7). The Cap Value is actually what the Taxable Value would have been, however it was higher than the SEV at 76,000. By law, the Taxable cannot exceed the SEV and so the Taxable was limited to be the same. This parcel did not uncap despite a transfer of ownership to Mr. Zimmerman because he purchased this parcel along with others that were primarily agricultural in usage. Per the laws of the State, a transfer of qualified agricultural property is not a "transfer of ownership" if certain conditions and procedures are followed. Mr. Zimmerman filed an affidavit attesting that the qualified agricultural property would remain qualified agricultural property. As such the parcel’s Taxable Value would not be uncapped. Attachment 4 further confirms that a value uncapping did not occur. This record card shows the percent transferred in the top right as 0%. This means there was not a “transfer of ownership” that would cause an uncapping. If it had uncapped, even partially, it would show a higher value, up to 100%. Additionally, this document corroborates what was mentioned earlier about the Cap Value. Near the bottom right side in the 2024 line, it shows the Taxable Value with an S after it, meaning the parcel’s value has been limited by the SEV, not the Cap Value. At the time of the March Board of Review, the Board heard Mr. Zimmerman’s petition as well as questioned the Assessor as to what determined his calculations. After deliberation they deemed that Mr. Zimmerman did not provide sufficient evidence to justify overruling the Assessor’s calculations. Therefore Mr. Zimmerman’s appeal was denied. Once again, I would like to thank the Michigan Tax Tribunal Small Claims division for taking the time to hear the Respondent in this case. Brent O. Desjarlais Authorized Representative Township of Holmes, Menominee County Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? March*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? If yes, cite the Board’s authority. Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No If yes, explain. Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order?
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR If so, what is the issue date? No IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? NA Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? NA NA IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: NA IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS Did Petitioner request the exemption at the BOR? No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: Tax Year(s) denied: List the date the exemption was denied: What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY What do you believe the classification should be: Section 6: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Identification Number: 006-004-008-00 Classification of Property: Real Agricultural Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 76,000 Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 76,000 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 152,000 Multiply the True Cash Value by. 5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 76,000 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: /s/ Brent O. Desjarlais