Detroit Thermal Tax Tribunal Petition August 2025.pdf

Detroit Thermal LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003090-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.

25-0050

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Detroit Thermal LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. ________

Parcel No. 25990320.15

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781)

Daniel L. Stanley (P57052)

Honigman LLP

Attorneys for Petitioner

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151

(313) 465-7420

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition

Detroit Thermal, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says:

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 541 Madison Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226.

2.

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number

25990320.15 ("Petitioner's Property").

3.

Petitioner’s Property is personal property that is at various locations in the City of

Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan.

4.

Petitioner is in the business of providing steam heat. Petitioner’s Property is used

in its business of providing steam heat.

2

61602066.1

5.

Respondent, City of Detroit, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's

Property.

6.

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be

$6,498,900 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $6,498,900, which has resulted in a state equalized

value in the same amount based upon the equalization factor.

7.

Petitioner's Property is classified as utility personal.

Petitioner's Property is

presently used or available for use as described above. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property

was originally designed to be used for Petitioner’s business purposes.

8.

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable

value, (d) due process, (e) uniformity, and (f) equal protection.

9.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property.

10.

Only after July 1, 2025, when Petitioner received the summer tax bill for

Petitioner’s Property, did Petitioner learn of the 2025 assessment of Petitioner’s Property.

11.

On July 8, 2025, after receiving the aforementioned 2025 summer tax bill for

Petitioner’s Property, Petitioner asked Respondent for the 2025 notice of assessment for

Petitioner’s Property.

12.

Petitioner first received the 2025 notice of assessment for Petitioner’s Property on

July 8, 2025.

13.

Under the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the

United States, the Michigan Constitution, and precedent that includes and is not limited to

Parkview Mem Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990) and Michigan

State University v City of Lansing, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued

February 15, 2005 (Docket No. 250813), the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this case.

3

61602066.1

14.

In Michigan State University v City of Lansing, unpublished opinion per curiam of

the Court of Appeals, issued February 15, 2005 (Docket No. 250813), the taxpayer was entitled to

pursue its Tribunal appeal where it filed its Tribunal Petition within thirty-five days of receiving

its summer tax bill in July because that was the first notice it received of the assessment. Here,

Petitioner also is filing this Petition within thirty-five days of receiving its summer tax bill and

notice of the assessment and therefore Petitioner is entitled to pursue this appeal.

15.

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful

for the reasons that:

(a)

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value,

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable

statutes;

(b)

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value,

is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the

Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

(c)

The 2025 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value,

is based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that

portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is

based upon the application of wrong principles; and

(d)

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value,

and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against

Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal

protection, and due process of law.

4

61602066.1

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the

2025 assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from

$6,498,900 to $1,227,635; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such

reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is

entitled.

Dated: August 4, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

HONIGMAN LLP

Attorneys for Petitioner

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781)

Daniel L. Stanley (P57052)

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151

(313) 465-7420

dstanley@honigman.com

slmandell@honigman.com

← View full record