24-003651.pdf
Robert J Bates, Petitioner V Township Of Ira, Respondent · 24-003651-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 Robert J Bates, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003651 Ira Township, Case Type: Taxable Value Only Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Samantha Welton, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephone Hearing Held on: January 13, 2026 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Donnell Robinson & Robert Bates Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Shawn M Biernat PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 74-23-140-0042-000 Year TV 2024 $16,097 2025 $16,596 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 March BOR. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 3, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 29, 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.1 Further, the property’s assessment for the subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003651 Page 2 of 6 MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s State Equalized Value (SEV) or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).3 MCL 211.34d(1)(b) defines the term “additions” for tax years after 1994. Under MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i), additions include omitted real property. That subsection states: As used in this subparagraph, “omitted real property” means previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment. Omitted real property does not increase taxable value as an addition unless the assessing jurisdiction has a property record card or other documentation showing that the omitted real property was not previously included in the assessment. The assessing jurisdiction has the burden of proof in establishing whether the omitted real property is included in the assessment. Omitted real property for the current and the 2 immediately preceding years, discovered after the assessment roll has been completed, must be added to the tax roll pursuant to the procedures established in section 154. For purposes of determining the taxable value of real property under section 27a, the value of omitted real property is based on the value and the ratio of taxable value to true cash value the omitted real property would have had if the property had not been omitted. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TV: Parcel Number: 74-23-140-0042-000 Year TV 2024 $5,847 2025 $6,028 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket maintained in this case.4 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property required normal repair and maintenance and the value should not have increased as a result of the Mathieu-Gast repairs. This property was purchased in 2014, and the lot is a nonconforming lot. A building permit would not have been granted but there was a building on the property at the time of purchase. Due to water levels and age of the building, the property was deteriorating. Ira Township issued a letter indicating the building was required to be 3 See MCL 211.34d. 4 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 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003651 Page 3 of 6 fixed due to the condition. Petitioner went to the zoning board of appeals and requested a variance to repair the nonconforming structure. A building permit was issued to repair the existing building. The building permit was to facilitate repairs and quality of construction, and because the repairs may go beyond 60% of the value of the property. The Mathieu-Gast Act was triggered since the repairs were to bring the building up to code. The subject property is an older building with two stories; the new building is also two stories, the roofline was replaced, it has the exact same square footage, and the building was not expanded or added to. Any repairs made to the existing structure clearly fall under the Mathieu-Gast Act. Respondent says it does not and that it has new additions. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax years at issue: Parcel Number: 74-23-140-0042-000 Year TV 2024 $26,347 2025 $27,163 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5 and 9 of the docket maintained in this case.5 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the Mathieu-Gast Act does not apply in this case and the subject property’s TV was increased due to omitted property. Ms. Biernat testified that with Mathieu-Gast Act, the value is not to be increased based on effective age, and the economic condition factor cannot be changed or increased. The second paragraph of the Act references normal repairs. The structure was not on the record at all; the subject property was being assessed as vacant land and the improvements were not valued. The value is not being increased, the value is being added to the record card. Nevertheless, Petitioner did not timely file the request for normal maintenance and repairs. Ms. Biernet testified that the previous assessor gave a reduction due to the condition of the structure; it did not contribute value to the property, so it was not assessed. An external review of photographs of the subject property does show it looks to be the same but for a different pitch to the new building. The structure is valued as a single family structure because it is a garage building with finished space above the garage. This is proper even if it is only used for storage because reductions are given through obsolescence. The record card shows 50% effective age (physical obsolescence) and additional obsolescence at 65% good for no bathroom. 5 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. 24-003651 Page 4 of 6 FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 7857 Long Island Court in Saint Clair County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 3. The subject property contains a storage building that is not inhabited. 4. Petitioner was cited by Respondent due to the storage building being in disrepair. 5. After obtaining a variance and building permit, Petitioner repaired the storage building with repairs being complete in 2023. 6. The 2016 – 2023 property record cards, submitted by Respondent, reflect the subject property as being assessed for land only. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.6 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.7 Petitioner characterizes this appeal as “[u]ncapping of taxable value when covered by State Law (Mathieu-Gast Act . . .).” However, alleging an uncapping occurred due to improper consideration of Mathieu-Gast maintenance and repairs is misplaced. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).8 Thus, a property’s TV uncaps only when a transfer of ownership, under MCL 211.27a, occurs. Here, neither party alleges a transfer of ownership occurs. Rather, Petitioner alleged the Mathieu-Gast Act, MCL 211.27(2), was violated and Respondent’s additions were improper. MCL 211.27(2) states that “[t]he assessor shall not consider the increase in true cash value that is a result of expenditures for normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance in determining the true cash value of property for assessment purposes until the property is sold.” The statute goes on to list specific repairs that are considered normal maintenance if they are not part of a structural addition or completion. The Tribunal finds that the Mathieu-Gast Act speaks to increases to the true cash value (TCV) and not the TV and the Act is not applicable to whether normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance are given nonconsideration for TV purposes. 6 MCL 205.735a(2). 7 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 8 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003651 Page 5 of 6 For TV purposes, “additions” includes “omitted property” and “new construction.”9 Here, the storage building is not new construction as the parties agree it was in existence before it was renovated. However, the storage building was not assessed by Respondent given its poor condition and inhabitability. Omitted real property, is “previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment.”10 However, “[o]mitted real property shall not increase taxable value as an addition unless the assessing jurisdiction has a property record card or other documentation showing that the omitted real property was not previously included in the assessment. The assessing jurisdiction has the burden of proof in establishing whether the omitted real property is included in the assessment.”11 Respondent indicated at hearing that the subject property’s TV for 2024 increased by more than the inflation rate due to an addition in the form of property that had not previously been included on the assessment roll (i.e., omitted property). Petitioner contends that the building has been on the property since they purchased it in 2014. However, Respondent submitted property record cards from 2016 – 2023 showing there were no improvements on the subject property and the building values all showed zero. The record cards reflected only land being assessed. As such, Respondent has met its burden in proving there was omitted property that must now be added back to the subject property now that the storage building has been renovated and contributes value to the subject property. Pursuant to MCL 211.34d, “the value of omitted real property is based on the value and the ratio of taxable value to true cash value the omitted real property would have had if the property had not been omitted.”12 This is best interpreted as meaning: division of the TV of the subject property without the omitted property by the TCV of the subject property without the omitted property. This formula as applied to the subject property is $5,847/$23,200 = .25. When this ratio is applied to the $41,000 TCV of the omitted building, the value of the building as a TV addition is $10,250. As such, the subject property’s 2024 TV must be calculated as follows under MCL 211.27a(2): 2023 TV of $5,569 x 2024 inflation rate multiplier of 1.05 = $5,847 + $10,250 omitted property = $16,097. The Tribunal finds that the 2024 TV is $16,097 and not $26,347, as recorded on the 2024 property record card. The parties agree there were no additions, losses, or omitted property for the 2025 tax year. The 2025 TV is calculated as the corrected 2024 TV of $39,423 x 2025 inflation rate multiplier of 1.031 = $16,596. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. 9 MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii). 10 MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i). 11 Id. 12 MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003651 Page 6 of 6 After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final Decision; b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final Decision; or c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other action as is necessary and appropriate. EXCEPTIONS The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service (i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. By _________________________________ Entered: January 26, 2026 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