Full record / Everstream_LYNX_MTT_Petition_final.pdf

Everstream_LYNX_MTT_Petition_final.pdf

Lynx Network Group Inc Petitioner Vs. Michigan Department Of Treasury Respondent · 26-002440-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.

Page 1

v 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

LANSING 

_____________________________, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

MTT Docket No. 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1.

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.)

2.

The property identified above is ___real ___personal.

3.

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non­

contiguous parcel.)

4.

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under

appeal.)

5.

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary):

6.

The property identified above is classified as _________________________

7.

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review.

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 

LYNX NETWORK GROUP, INC.

MICHIGAN STATE TAX COMMISSION

99-99-99-99-999-115

X

X

99-99-99-99-999-115: 2026 Annual Property Report (state assessed) filed with 

the Michigan Department of Treasury, State Assessed Utility Roll, pursuant to 

PA 282 of 1905. Filed March 30, 2026

Telecommunications (State Assessed)

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

8.

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

9.

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

10.

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The

property or properties’ address is:

11.

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable

local governmental unit): ________________________________________

12.

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is:

13.

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):

________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values

________the property or properties’ taxable value only

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No 

________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

under MCL ______ 

14.

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________

The subject is state-assessed property valued by the Michigan State Tax Commission (STC) on the 2026 State Assessed Utility 

Roll. Petitioner sought additional time to submit an updated appraisal and understood it could participate in the STC hearing 

remotely (via Webex), as in prior years. Petitioner received no notice of any in-person requirement. By email dated June 12, 2026, 

Treasury acknowledged the miscommunication, citing a June 3, 2026 notice and Rule R 209.65 requiring in-person STC hearings, 

and confirmed the final 2026 roll had already been approved with no further STC changes permitted except an MCL 211.154 

correction. Treasury further confirmed the Michigan Tax Tribunal is the proper forum for valuation disputes.

Petitioner did not file by the STC hearing/appeal deadline because it was requesting additional time to discuss the assessment and 

submit an updated appraisal, and reasonably understood (consistent with prior years) that the STC hearing was available via Webex. 

The State did not provide notice that remote participation was unavailable in 2026 (or apparently 2025). Treasury acknowledged this 

miscommunication by email on June 12, 2026, referencing a June 3, 2026 notice and Rule R 209.65. Petitioner timely invokes the 

Tribunal's jurisdiction under MCL 205.731 and 205.735a as the proper forum for a valuation dispute concerning state-assessed 

property.

N/A

N/A - State-assessed telecommunications property valued by the Michigan State 

Tax Commission on the State Assessed Utility Roll; not assigned to a single local 

taxing situs.

Michigan State Tax Commission (State Assessed Utility Roll)

Lynx Network Group, Inc. 

1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 250, Cleveland, OH 44115 

c/o Kroll, LLC, PO Box 2549, Addison, TX 75001

X

2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 3 of 4 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior 

tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 

Board of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value

Taxable Value 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

20. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the 

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

N/A - Only the 2026 tax year is at issue.

2026

3,917,500

1,958,750

1,958,750

2026

2,053,100 or less*

1,026,550 or less*

1,026,550 or less*

2026

1,864,400

932,200

932,200

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reduce the true cash value, state equalized (assessed) value, and 

taxable value of the subject property for the 2026 tax year to reflect the property's actual true cash value 

as supported by the company's updated fair value report, which indicates a value below the value 

reported on the annual return, and order any resulting refund of overpaid taxes plus statutory interest.

The annual return was filed using the best information available at the time, including a fair value allocation reconciling to the 

2025 fair value previously agreed with Michigan. After filing, the State revised the return back to historical cost, overstating the 

property's true cash value. The company has since obtained an updated fair value report indicating that the true cash value of the 

subject state-assessed personal property is lower than the value reflected on the State Assessed Utility Roll. That report is being 

finalized and will be provided to support the requested reduction. Petitioner reserves the right to supplement this petition with the 

specific value conclusions once the updated fair value report is available. *The contended values stated in Item 17 are the 

company's current fair value figures and are subject to further reduction once the updated fair value report is finalized.

Page 4

______________________________________________________________________ 

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Printed Name of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Email Address: _________________________________________________________ 

Mailing Address: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number: _____________________________________________________ 

Date: 6/29/2026____________________________________________________ 

 

 Jay Belinfante

 Jay.Belinfante@Kroll.com

PO Box 2549, Addison, Texas 75001

770-891-5498

PDF reading copy

← View full record