24-003784.pdf
John S Harris, Petitioner V Township Of Lee, Respondent · 24-003784-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 John S Harris, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003784 v Case Type: Qualified Agricultural Exemption Lee Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: December 2, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: John Harris and Deb Ondersma, Attorney Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Heather Jahr, Assessor SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT Parcel No. 12-017-014-11 is not entitled to a Qualified Agricultural Exemption (QAE) under MCL 211.7ee. As a result, the property has a QAE of 0% for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Respondent’s assessor rescinded the subject property’s QAE in the 2024 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification. Petitioner appealed the denial to the 2024 March Board of Review. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 27, 2024, and Respondent filed its answer on November 9, 2024. ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether the subject property is qualified to receive a QAE under MCL 211.7ee. MCL 211.7ee provides as follows: (1) Qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local school district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 2 of 9 section 1211 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1211, according to the provisions of this section. (2) Qualified agricultural property that is classified as agricultural under section 34c is exempt under subsection (1) and the owner is not required to file an affidavit claiming an exemption with the local tax collecting unit unless requested by the assessor to determine whether the property includes structures that are not exempt under this section. To claim an exemption under subsection (1) for qualified agricultural property that is not classified as agricultural under section 34c, the owner shall file an affidavit claiming the exemption with the local tax collecting unit by May 1. (3) The affidavit shall be on a form prescribed by the department of treasury. (4) For property classified as agricultural, and upon receipt of an affidavit filed under subsection (2) for property not classified as agricultural, the assessor shall determine if the property is qualified agricultural property and if so shall exempt the property from the collection of the tax as provided in subsection (1) until December 31 of the year in which the property is no longer qualified agricultural property as defined in section 7dd. An owner is required to file a new claim for exemption on the same property as requested by the assessor under subsection (2). *** (6) An owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was not on the tax roll may file an appeal with the July or December board of review in the year the exemption was claimed or the immediately succeeding year. An owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was denied by the assessor in the year the affidavit was filed, may file an appeal with the July board of review for summer taxes or, if there is not a summer levy of school operating taxes, with the December board of review. (7) If the assessor of the local tax collecting unit believes that the property for which an exemption has been granted is not qualified agricultural property, the assessor may deny or modify an existing exemption by notifying the owner in writing at the time required for providing a notice under section 24c. A taxpayer may appeal the assessor's determination to the board of review meeting under section 30. A decision of the board of review may be appealed to the residential and small claims division of the Michigan tax tribunal.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 3 of 9 Qualified agricultural property is defined as: [U]noccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or other unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in section 36101 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.36101. Related buildings include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not claimed a principal residence exemption on other property. Property used for commercial storage, commercial processing, commercial distribution, commercial marketing, or commercial shipping operations or other commercial or industrial purposes is not qualified agricultural property. A parcel of property is devoted primarily to agricultural use only if more than 50% of the parcel's acreage is devoted to agricultural use. An owner shall not receive an exemption for that portion of the total state equalized valuation of the property that is used for a commercial or industrial purpose or that is a residence that is not a related building.1 MCL 324.36101(b) defines “agricultural use” as follows: the production of plants and animals useful to humans, including forages and sod crops; grains, feed crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including breeding and grazing of cattle, swine, captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; herbs; flowers; seeds; grasses; nursery stock; fruits; vegetables; maple syrup production; Christmas trees; and other similar uses and activities. Agricultural use includes use in a federal acreage set-aside program or a federal conservation reserve program. Agricultural use does not include the management and harvesting of a woodlot. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 10 of the docket maintained in this case.2 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property qualifies for a 100% QAE. 1 MCL 211.7dd(d). 2 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. 24-003784 Page 4 of 9 At hearing, John Harris testified that he is the sole member of Harris Blueberries, LLC. Mr. Harris began blueberry farming in the 1970’s and presently owns approximately 300 acres of blueberries, on which approximately 1.5 million pounds of blueberries are hand-picked per year. Mr. Harris testified that of the 300 acres, 161 acres are located in Lee Township. Mr. Harris testified that he employs a number of migrant workers each year from June to the end of August. Mr. Harris provides housing for the migrant workers each year, which is inspected, licensed, and regulated by the State of Michigan. For the tax years at issue, Mr. Harris confirmed that all of the structures located on the subject property were occupied for blueberry farming purposes. Further, Mr. Harris testified that the structures are necessary to secure migrant laborers, and without them, he would not be able to continue his blueberry farming operation. Petitioner’s attorney, Deb Ondersma, submits that the issue in this case is whether or not the blueberry farming must occur on the subject parcel in order to qualify for a QAE under MCL 211.7dd. Ms. Ondersma contends that there is no express language in MCL 211.7dd that requires actual growing on the subject property and referred to Petitioner’s brief in support of Petitioner’s legal arguments. B. Respondent’s Evidence The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5 and 7 of the docket maintained in this case.3 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property does not qualify for a QAE. At hearing, Respondent’s assessor, Heather Jahr, testified that classification of a parcel is based on use. Ms. Jahr testified that she began working for Lee Township in late 2023 and removed several previously granted QAEs for various properties located in the township after determining they did not qualify. Ms. Jahr contends that the use of the subject property in this case is residential, consisting of housing for Petitioner’s migrant workers. Ms. Jahr also noted that the Michigan State Tax Commission Guidelines confirm that if the migrant housing was located on the parcel on which blueberries are actually grown, the subject property would qualify for a QAE. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 745 58th Street in Allegan County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential-improved. 3. Petitioner owns the subject property. 3 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. 24-003784 Page 5 of 9 4. For the 2023 tax year, Petitioner received a 100% QAE on the subject property. 5. In 2024, Lee Township’s assessor canceled the previously granted 100% QAE on the subject property and changed the classification from agricultural to residential. 6. Petitioner owns parcel number 12-017-014-00 which is approximately 38.2 acres in size and is classified as agricultural.4 Petitioner farms blueberries on this parcel. 7. The subject parcel is contiguous to the 38.2 acre parcel ending in 014-00. 8. The subject property does not contain any blueberry bushes or any other crops. 9. The subject property is not devoted primarily to “agricultural use” as defined by MCL 324.36101(b). 10. The structure on the subject property is seasonally occupied by migrant workers employed by Petitioner in conjunction with his blueberry farming operation. 11. More than 50% of the subject property was not devoted to “agricultural use” for the tax years at issue. 12. Blueberry farming is considered an “agricultural use” under MCL 324.36101(b). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: A QAE is an exemption from certain local school operating taxes.5 Only “qualified agricultural property” is eligible for the QAE.6 Under MCL 211.7dd(d), property that is not classified as agricultural is considered “qualified agricultural property” if more than 50% of the parcel’s acreage is devoted to agricultural use, with the term “agricultural use” being defined in MCL 324.36101. In this case, the subject property is classified as residential, meaning any QAE must be based on use of the property, not its classification. MCL 211.7dd(d) defines “qualified agricultural property” in relevant part as follows: (d) "Qualified agricultural property" means unoccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or other unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in section 36101 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.36101. Related buildings include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not claimed a principal residence exemption on other property…. A parcel of property is devoted primarily to agricultural use only if more than 50% of the parcel's acreage is devoted to agricultural use. An owner shall not receive an exemption for that portion of the total state equalized valuation of the property that is used for a commercial or industrial purpose or that is a residence that is not a related building. 4 This parcel is commonly known as 107th Avenue, Pullman, Michigan 49450 (107th Avenue). 5 See MCL 211.7ee(1). 6 See MCL 211.7ee(2).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 6 of 9 MCL 324.36101(b) defines “agricultural use” as: (b) "Agricultural use" means the production of plants and animals useful to humans, including forages and sod crops; grains, feed crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including breeding and grazing of cattle, swine, captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; herbs; flowers; seeds; grasses; nursery stock; fruits; vegetables; maple syrup production; Christmas trees; and other similar uses and activities. Agricultural use includes use in a federal acreage set- aside program or a federal conservation reserve program. Agricultural use does not include the management and harvesting of a woodlot. The parcel under appeal consists of .454 acres of land and one residential duplex that is used approximately three months of each growing season to house migrant workers. The subject property is one of several parcels which collectively make up the blueberry farming operation owned by Petitioner. The subject parcel is contiguous to the 38.2-acre parcel located at 107th Avenue, on which Petitioner grows blueberries. The photographic evidence provided by Respondent undisputably shows that the subject property has no blueberry bushes. Petitioner contends that the plain language of MCL 211.7dd(d) qualifies the subject property for a QAE because Petitioner’s migrant housing is “qualified agricultural property.” On the other hand, Respondent contends the subject property does not qualify for a QAE because there is no “agricultural use” occurring at the subject property. Instead, Respondent submits the subject property is used solely for residential purposes to temporarily house migrant workers employed by Petitioner.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 7 of 9 The Michigan State Tax Commission Qualified Agricultural Exemption Guidelines (QAE guidelines) from August 2018, specifically addresses Petitioner’s underlying argument in this appeal, by way of the following example: 2. A house is located on a 1/2 acre parcel, not classified agricultural with no agricultural use. The owner of the parcel owns and operates a 40 acre farming operation adjacent to the 1/2 acre parcel. The house is occupied by the owner of the farm and they have not claimed a principal residence exemption on the home. Is the 1/2-acre parcel eligible for the qualified agricultural property exemption? No. The qualified agricultural property exemption is decided on a parcel-by- parcel basis. To be eligible for the qualified agricultural property exemption, a structure must be a related building and must be located on a parcel that is classified agricultural or that is devoted primarily to agricultural use. However, the ½ acre parcel may qualify for the principal residence exemption.7 [Emphasis added.] As Petitioner correctly pointed out in its brief, the QAE guidelines do not have the force of law. However, agency interpretations are generally given “respectful consideration” so long as they are consistent with the plain language of the statute.8 In this case, the QAE guidelines and the plain language of the applicable statutes are consistent, and therefore, the Tribunal finds that the QAE guidelines cited above are entitled to respectful consideration. Eligibility for a QAE is determined on a parcel-by-parcel basis centered on use and classification. To be eligible for a QAE, a structure must be a related building and must be located on a parcel that is classified agricultural or that is devoted primarily, meaning more than 50% of that parcel’s acreage, to “agricultural use” as defined by law. In this case, the subject property is not classified as agricultural and there is no “agricultural use” occurring on the subject property. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded by Petitioner’s legal argument related to the plain reading of MCL 211.7dd(d). To the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the plain language of MCL 211.7dd(d), explicitly requires that the related buildings be “located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use.” Applying the plain language of the statue to the facts of this case, the Tribunal finds that the subject property is not entitled to a QAE because the housing is located on a parcel that is not classified agricultural and there is no “agricultural use” occurring at the subject property. Merely owning a piece of property that seasonally houses migrant workers employed by Petitioner, that is contiguous to a parcel that is classified agricultural and actively farmed, is not persuasive. Although the Tribunal sympathizes and acknowledges the importance and success of Petitioner’s blueberry farming operation relies heavily on his ability to employ and house 7 See Michigan State Tax Commission Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption Guidelines, page 7 (August 2018). 8 See In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich, 482 Mich 90; 754 NW2d 259 (2008).
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 8 of 9 migrant workers, that is an equitable argument, which the Tribunal has no authority to consider.9 Accordingly, based on the evidence, testimony, and for the reasons detailed herein, the Tribunal finds the subject property is not entitled to a QAE for the tax years at issue. JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that the property’s QAE for the tax year(s) at issue shall be as set forth in the Summary of Judgment section of this Final Opinion and Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax year(s) at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s qualified agricultural exemption as finally shown in this Final Opinion and Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.10 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 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%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, 9 See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 324; 411 NW2d 169 (1987). 10 See MCL 205.755.
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 24-003784 Page 9 of 9 through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, and (xix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 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. 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: March 5, 2026 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