24-003423 Exemption.pdf
Courser Community Center Inc, Petitioner V Township Of Rolland, Respondent · 24-003423-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 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 Courser Community Center Inc,1 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003423 v Case Type: Charitable Exemption Rolland Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER UPDATING DOCKET Upon agreement by the respective parties at hearing, the docket is updated to reflect Courser Community Center Inc as Petitioner in this matter. FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: May 6, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Rolland Courser and Kimberly Smith Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Denise Hall, Assessor SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT The subject property is not granted an exemption for the 2024 tax year. The subject property’s taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, is as follows: Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 Year TV 2024 $55,650 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner applied to the March Board of Review (BOR) for a charitable exemption under MCL 211.7o. The BOR denied Petitioner’s exemption because the property was not being used. 1 The original petition incorrectly lists Rolland J Courser as Petitioner. At hearing, the parties agreed the correct Petitioner is Courser Community Center Inc. and had no objection to the Tribunal updating the docket to reflect such.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 2 of 11 Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 29, 2024, and Respondent filed its answer on October 3, 2024. The amount of the TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s property qualifies for a property tax exemption pursuant to MCL 211.7o as a tax-exempt organization. The petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to an exemption.3 MCL 211.7o provides, in pertinent part: (1) Real or personal property owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution while occupied by that nonprofit charitable institution solely for the purposes for which that nonprofit charitable institution was incorporated is exempt from the collection of taxes under this act. Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the evidence.”4 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or reasoned opinion.”5 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contention of TV: Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 Year TV 2024 $0 – Exempt under MCL 211.7o 2 See MCL 205.762(1). 3 See ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002). 4 See also MCR 2.517(a). 5 Id.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 3 of 11 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket maintained in this case.6 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property is tax exempt under MCL 211.7o. At hearing, Petitioner, Rolland Courser, testified that he purchased the subject property with the intent to donate the building back to the local community. The subject property is a former school with a gymnasium and the intent was to transform the building into a community center. Mr. Courser testified that the former owner of the property was tax- exempt, and he does not understand why that did not carry over after he purchased the property. Mr. Courser testified that he purchased the property in 2020 for approximately $45,000 and received a tax exemption that year and the following year. In 2023, Respondent revoked the exemption after determining the property was not being used. Mr. Courser testified that there are often people working at the property, but there are many problems such as asbestos, break-ins which caused extensive damages, and the gymnasium roof is leaking. Kimberly Smith also testified at hearing, stating that the overall project to get the building back to satisfactory repair was larger than expected and a substianal amount of money needed to be raised for the repairs. Ms. Smith testified that she had no idea how many years it was going to take to restore the building. Although there was a lot of initial enthusiasm from the community, that enthusiasm slowly faded after break-ins and additional costs. Ms. Smith testified that they initially believed it might take 10 or more years to come up with the approximately $500,000 that was needed to fully repair and transform the building into a community center. Ms. Smith testified that they had fundraisers and community events to raise funds, but those events did not occur at the subject property. In the end, there was not enough money readily available to transform the building into a community center, and the property was deeded back to Mr. Courser in November 2024. Ms. Smith testified that it was their understanding the building would remain tax exempt while it was in the process of being repaired and because the former owner was never using it but was granted an exemption. 6 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 4 of 11 B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year at issue: Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 Year TV 2024 $55,650 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 9 of the docket maintained in this case.7 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property is not occupied and therefore does not qualify for an exemption under MCL 211.7o. Ms. Hall testified that she was supportive and excited about Petitioner’s intent to transform the building into a community center. Ms. Hall testified that she granted the tax exemption for tax years 2021 and 2022 to give Petitioner some time to repair the building for use. However, after granting the exemption for two years, Ms. Hall testified that the building was not being occupied or used and was therefore required to follow the law and revoke the exemption for the 2023 tax year. Ms. Hall testified that the former owner of the property was also a 501(c)(3) that provided veteran’s services and goods by appointment only. In closing, Ms. Hall testified that she was supportive of Petitioner’s intentions, but is also required to follow the law, and therefore revoked the exemption in 2023, because the building was not being used. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were found to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 405 Fourth Street, Blanchard, Michigan in Isabella County. 2. The subject property is classified as commercial. 3. At hearing, the parties agreed to substitute Courser Community Center Inc. as Petitioner in place of Rolland J. Courser. 4. The subject property is a former elementary school that was purchased by the Rolland J Courser Trust in 2020, for $45,000. In August 2021, the subject property was quit claimed to the Courser Community Center Inc. with the intent to convert it into a community center. In November 2024, the subject property was quit claimed back to the Rolland J Courser Trust. 7 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 5 of 11 5. The subject property was granted a tax exemption for the 2021 and 2022 tax years. In 2023, the exemption was revoked and not appealed by Petitioner. 6. Petitioner owned the subject property during the 2024 tax year. 7. Petitioner is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 8. Petitioner admitted the building was not usable in its petition by stating, “[w]e started with the following problems that MUST be completed prior to having any use of the buildings….” 9. Photographic evidence shows, and Petitioner’s representatives admit, that the property is not habitable or capable of being used in its current condition. 10. In paragraph 5 of Petitioner’s petition, Petitioner admitted that the subject property needed a new roof, the heating system was not functional, and all of the windows and toilet fixtures were broken as a result of a break-in. 11. Petitioner did not provide any evidence of charity for the 2024 tax year. 12. Petitioner did not occupy the subject property as required by law for the 2024 tax year. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: All of the evidence submitted by the parties was considered in reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this section of the Opinion and Judgment, the presiding judge has determined that this evidence was given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in reaching a decision in this case is discussed below. Under the General Property Tax Act, “all property, real and personal, within the jurisdiction of this state, not expressly exempted, shall be subject to taxation.”8 In this case, Petitioner argues that the subject property should be exempt from taxation under MCL 211.7o(1). “Tax exemptions are strictly construed in favor of the taxing authority . . . and the petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to the requested exemption. . . .”9 In this case, Petitioner submits that the subject property is exempt from taxation because it was declared a non-profit 501(c)(3) exempt organization by the IRS and Petitioner purchased the subject property with the intent to convert the building into a community center. However, in Michigan, an entity’s federal income tax status is not a determining factor for exemption from Michigan property taxes. The Michigan standard for a charitable exemption is more rigorous than the federal standard. Accordingly, not every Michigan non-profit corporation qualifies for an exemption under MCL 211.7o(1). 8 See MCL 211.1. 9 See Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 479; 865 NW2d 52 (2014).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 6 of 11 Exemption under MCL 211.7o(1) MCL 211.7o(1) provides: Real or personal property owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution while occupied by that nonprofit charitable institution solely for the purposes for which that nonprofit charitable institution was incorporated is exempt from the collection of taxes under this act. [Emphasis added.] The Michigan Supreme Court has held that a taxpayer seeking an exemption under MCL 211.7o(1) must establish the following three elements to qualify for the exemption: (1) The real estate must be owned and occupied by the exemption claimant; (2) The exemption claimant must be a nonprofit charitable institution; and (3) The exemption exists only when the buildings and other property thereon are occupied by the claimant solely for the purposes for which it was incorporated.10 (1) The real estate must be owned and occupied by the exemption claimant Regarding the first element, it is undisputed that Petitioner owns the property under appeal. Next, the Tribunal must determine whether or not Petitioner occupied the subject property. In Liberty Hill Housing Corp, the Michigan Supreme Court concurred with the dictionary definition of “occupy” utilized by the Court of Appeals, namely that for property owned by a charitable institution, “the charitable institution must at a minimum have a regular physical presence on the property.” As noted in the 2024 BOR denial decision, the subject property is a “charitable org[azation] owned but not being used.“11 In this case, Petitioner purchased the abandoned school building with the intent to convert the building into a community center. Petitioner provided evidence of a sporadic presence at the property consisting of interior and exterior maintenance, yardwork, debris removal, and the hosting of fundraisers. Further, the photographic evidence supports the fact that the building is in serious disrepair and incapable of being used without first making necessary repairs. Although Petitioner provided some evidence of its presence at the subject property, Petitioner did not provide any affidavits or exhibits to specifically establish a regular presence on the subject property as it relates to the 2024 tax year. Further, Petitioner’s representatives admit the subject property was incapable of being occupied until repairs were made. Further, Petitioner offered no definitive date for which the subject property would reopen, and although the closure was said to be only temporary, the property remained closed during the 2024 tax year at issue in this case. Based on the evidence presented and for the reasons outline above, 10 Wexford Med Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich 192, 203; 713 NW2d 734 (2006). 11 See Tax Docket Lookup, line #9, 2024 BOR Decision, page 32.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 7 of 11 the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the occupancy requirement by maintaining a regular physical presence on the property for the 2024 tax year. [Emphasis added.] (2) The exemption claimant must be a nonprofit charitable institution The second element concerns whether Petitioner qualifies as a “nonprofit charitable institution.”12 The meaning of “charitable institution” is not legislatively defined, but our Supreme Court set forth a six-factor Wexford test to evaluate whether an entity should be considered a “charitable institution” for purposes of the exemption: (1) A “charitable institution” must be a nonprofit institution. (2) A “charitable institution” is one that is organized chiefly, if not solely, for charity. (3) A “charitable institution” does not offer its charity on a discriminatory basis by choosing who, among the group it purports to serve, deserves the services. Rather, a “charitable institution” serves any person who needs the particular type of charity being offered. (4) A “charitable institution” brings people’s minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion; relieves people’s bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint; assists people to establish themselves for life; erects or maintains public buildings or works; or otherwise lessens the burdens of government. (5) A “charitable institution” can charge for its services as long as the charges are not more than what is needed for its successful maintenance. (6) A “charitable institution” need not meet any monetary threshold of charity to merit the charitable institution exemption; rather, if the overall nature of the institution is charitable, it is a “charitable institution” regardless of how much money it devotes to charitable activities in a particular year.13 Accordingly, the Tribunal must analyze the above six factors established in Wexford to determine whether Petitioner qualifies as a “charitable institution.” There is no dispute that Petitioner is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation and therefore the Tribunal finds that Petitioner meets the first Wexford factor. 12 Id. at 203. 13 Wexford at 215.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 8 of 11 Because Wexford factors two, three, and four overlap, the Tribunal will address these factors together. The Michigan Supreme Court has defined “charity” as: [A] gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of the government.14 Petitioner’s Articles of Incorporation provide that the purposes for which Petitioner was organized are as follows: Courser Community Center, Inc. is a nonprofit organization organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to provide residents of Blanchard, Michigan with assistance for food, clothing, and recreational and enrichment activities. We provide opportunities for all people, regardless of income, the ability to exercise, learn about physical health, and have access to food and other necessary items.15 Accordingly, to be considered a charitable institution, Petitioner must provide a gift that benefits an indefinite number of people. Although Respondent graciously provided Petitioner with time to complete repairs by exempting the subject property for tax years 2021 and 2022, Respondent eventually revoked the exemption and placed the subject property back on the roll in 2023 after determining the property was not being used. Again, it is undisputed that the subject property was in serious disrepair when Mr. Courser purchased the property and needed significant work before it could open as a community center. It is further undisputed that shortly after Mr. Courser purchased the property, the building was vandalized, resulting in further disrepair. Moreover, Petitioner’s representatives admit in their petition that, “[w]e started with the following problems that MUST be completed prior to having any use of the buildings” and went on to list the specific problems along with the estimated cost for repairs.16 Further, Petitioner provided photographic evidence showing the complete disrepair of the interior of the building which the Tribunal finds supports Petitioner’s representatives’ testimony that the subject property was incapable of being used until repairs were completed. Although Petitioner’s representatives testified at hearing that they believed the property would be tax exempt for whatever time period they needed to complete repairs, they provided no legal authority to support their position. “An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for 14 Wexford at 211. 15 See Tax Docket Lookup, line #9, Articles of Incorporation, page 23. 16 See Tax Tribunal Lookup, line #1, Petitioner’s petition, page 2, paragraph 5.
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 9 of 11 his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.”17 Further, Petitioner did not provide any evidence to support that it offered any charity at the subject property and there is no evidence the subject property was used or offered for the benefit of the public. By Petitioner’s representatives’ own admissions, the subject property was not open to the public and incapable of being used in its current state of disrepair. Although the Tribunal commends Mr. Courser and believes he had the best intentions to transform the property into a community center, “the Tax Tribunal is a quasi-judicial agency, and its powers are limited to those authorized by statute, which do not include equitable power.”18 Accordingly, the Tribunal is required to follow the law. Thus, while the reason why the subject property was closed is understandable, the result is that Petitioner did not offer its charity to anyone during the tax year at issue. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met the third and fourth Wexford factors. The Tribunal finds it is unnecessary to discuss the remaining Wexford factors because all six Wexford factors must be met for an organization to be considered a charitable institution under MCL 211.7o. Accordingly, based on the testimony, evidence, and for the reasons outlined herein, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore the subject property is not exempt from taxation under MCL 211.7o for the 2024 tax year. IT IS ORDERED that the docket shall be UPDATED to reflect Courser Community Center Inc as the proper Petitioner in this case. JUDGMENT IT IS 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 exemption within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.19 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. 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 17 Houghton ex rel Johnson v Keller, 256 Mich App 336, 339; 662 NW2d 854 (2003) (citations omitted). “ 18 Federal Mogul Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346; 411 NW2d 169 (1987). 19 See MCL 205.755.
Page 10
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 10 of 11 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. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, and (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%. This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter 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.
Page 11
MTT Docket No. 24-003423 Page 11 of 11 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: September 3, 2025 jcg 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 provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk