Signed Answer Arlington Twp.pdf

Journey To The Well Foundation, Inc. Petitioner Vs. Township Of Arlington Respondent · 26-002404-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No:26-002404 

80-06-001-006-10 

80-06-001-006-15 

Journey to the Well Foundation, INC. 

Petitioner, 

\% 

Township of Arlington 

Respondent. 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE 

TRIBUNAL PETITION 

NOW COMES Respondent, Township of Arlington, by and through its 

Assessor, and for its Answer to Petitioner's Entire Tribunal Property Tax 

Petition, states as follows: 

The Parties 

1. Admit. 

2. Admit. 

The Subject Properties 

3. Admit. 

a. Admit.

b. Admit. Respondent admits that while the property has an 

improvement the address listed for this parcel is simply Woodland 

Dr. 

4. Admit. 

5. Admit. 

The Subject Properties’ 2026 Property Tax Assessments 

6. Admit. 

7. Admit. 

8. Deny. The petitioner made an error on True Cash Values of each 

parcel. 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

80-03-001-006-10 

$423,915 

$212,000 

$212,000 

80-03-001-006-15 

$94,968 

$47,500 

$47,500 

9. Admit part, deny part. Respondent admits that Petitioner protested to 

the 2026 March Board of Review and was denied relief. Respondent 

denies all remaining allegations or legal conclusions contained within 

Paragraph 9. 

10. 

Deny. Respondent denies that the Subject Properties qualify for 

an exemption from 

real property taxes under the General Property 

Tax Act and denies that the lawful assessments are zero and asserts 

that 

the 2026 assessments 

established 

by 

the 

March 

Board 

of 

Review are valid, 

lawful, and accurate under the General Property 

Tax Act. 

: 

11. 

Deny. The correct amounts are listed in Number 8. 

12. 

Admit 

in 

part, deny 

in 

part. Respondent admits only that the 

Petitioner is the record owner of the Subject Properties. Respondent 

denies that 

Petitioner 

is 

a qualifying 

“charitable 

institution” under 

Michigan law, and strictly denies the Subject Properties are occupied 

and used solely for a qualifying public charitable purpose under MCL 

211.70. Respondent specifically asserts that the Petitioner fails to 

satisfy the six-factor test established in the Wexford Medical Group v.

City of Cadillac 474 Mich 192; 713 NW2d 734 (2006) including but 

not 

limited 

to 

failing 

to 

prove 

that 

its 

operations 

provide 

an 

unrestrictive 

gift 

to 

an 

indefinite number 

of persons, 

that 

its fee 

structures do not exclude individuals based on an inability to pay, or 

that its use of the Subject Properties serves to relieve a burden to the 

government 

13. 

Deny. Respondent denies that Paragraph 13 accurately states the 

incorporated 

purpose. Respondent asserts that weddings, birthday 

parties, 

corporate 

retreats, 

and 

short-term 

rentals 

fall outside the 

stated purpose. 

14. 

Admit in part, deny in part. Respondent admits only that change in 

the 2026 taxable value was only due to the statutory uncapping of the 

properties 

taxable 

value 

after 

the 

transfer 

of 

ownership 

which 

included 

no additions or losses. Respondent denies any remaining 

allegations, 

inferences, 

or 

legal 

considerations 

contained 

within 

Paragraph 14, including Petitioner’s unilateral reservation of rights to 

assert issues involving losses at a later date. 

15. 

Deny. Respondent denies that the 2026 assessments or taxable 

status are unlawful, improper, or invalid, and specifically denies the 

sub-allegations therein as follows: 

a. Deny. 

Respondent 

denies 

that 

the 

assessments 

violate 

the 

Michigan Constitution, the General Property Tax Act, or any other 

Michigan law. 

b. Deny. Respondent denies 

that the assessments are based 

on 

erroneous 

principles 

or erroneous information 

and asserts 

the 

assessments are entitled to the statutory presumption of validity 

and accuracy under the General Property Tax Act. MCL 211.31 

c. Deny. Respondent denies that any of the Petitioner's rights have 

been violated. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Failure to State a Claim/Failure of Proof: Petitioner's claims are barred, 

in whole or in part, because Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon 

which 

relief can be granted. Specifically, Petitioner cannot satisfy the 

strict statutory elements required to qualify for a charitable property tax 

exemption under MCL 211.70. 

2. Federal 

and 

Corporate 

Tax-Exempt 

Status 

is 

insufficient 

to 

Prove 

Non-Profit Charitable Operation: While Petitioner has submitted state 

Articles of Incorporation and a federal IRS 501¢(3) religious exemption 

determination 

letter, 

such 

documentation 

is 

legally 

insufficient 

to 

establish 

a real property tax exemption under Michigan law. Under the 

framework of Wexford Medical Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich 192 

(2006) and Liberty Hill Housing Corp v City of Livonia, 480 Mich 140 

(2008), Petitioner bears the burden of prove 

it physically operates as a 

non-profit 

charitable 

institution. 

Petitioner 

has 

failed 

to 

produce 

organizational bylaws, complete operational financial records (such as 

generalized ledgers, check registers, or profit-loss statements), or any 

IRS Form 

990 

filings since 

its incorporation 

in 2024. Consequently, 

Petitioner cannot prove that its actual day-to-day operations match 

its 

corporate paperwork or that 

it qualifies as a true charitable institution 

under MCL 211.70. 

3. Commercial 

Hospitality, 

Rental 

Use, 

and Administrative Admissions: 

Exemption under MCL 211.70 requires that the Subject Properties be 

occupied 

solely 

for 

the 

specific 

charitable 

purposes 

for which 

the 

petitioner was incorporated. Petitioner's properties are actively utilized, 

commercially operated, and publicly marketed as 

a short-term rental 

lodging 

and 

recreational 

event 

venue 

rather 

than 

a 

charitable 

organization. Specifically, Respondent incorporates the following factual 

bases showcasing the property's non-exempt, commercial character: 

1. Public Commercial Rentals: Petitioner lists the entire retreat 

center 

facility 

for 

public 

hire 

on 

commercial 

short-term 

vacation rental platforms including, but not limited to, VRBO.

2. Recreational 

and 

Social 

Operations: 

Petitioner 

actively 

solicits and hosts social celebratory, and recreational events 

on-site 

for 

a commercial 

fee, 

including 

private weddings, 

family unions, anniversary getaways, corporate retreats, and 

birthday parties, as evidenced by promotional materials and 

customer reviews on Petitioner's public website. 

3. Admission of Commercial Intent (Zoning/Planning Records): 

Petitioner sought 

a 

Special 

Use 

Permit (SUP) 

from 

the 

Planning Commission to operate the subject property as a 

commercial 

“Bed 

and 

Breakfast.” 

Petitioner's attempt 

to 

secure an SUP to operate a commercial hospitality lodging 

establishment constitutes an admission that the property is 

not occupied solely for a charitable purpose, which legally 

defeats the strict occupancy mandates of MCL 211.70. 

4. Lack of Charitable Gifts/Services and Prohibited Commercial 

Pricing: Petitioner's operations do not constitute a ‘charitable gift’ to an 

indefinite number of persons under Michigan law. Petitioner operates on 

a high-fee, commercial fee-for-service model that actively excludes the 

general public based on financial ability. Specifically, Petitioner charges 

substantial 

premium 

rates 

for 

its 

structured 

events 

ranging 

from 

approximately $575.00 to $1300.00 for a single 3-day retreat. This cost 

structure mimics a commercial hospitality wellness or lodging operation 

rather than a charitable arrangement designed to benefit an indefinite 

number of people. 

5. Lack of Objective Charitable Criteria and Public Accessibility: 

To 

qualify 

under MCL 

211.70, 

and 

organization 

must 

distribute 

its 

benefits 

to 

an 

indefinite 

number 

of 

people 

using 

objective, 

non-discriminatory 

charitable 

thresholds. 

Petitioner's 

Public 

website 

contains no formal application process, no published criteria regarding 

an applicant's ability to pay, and no description of how its services are 

rendered 

charitably. 

Instead, 

access 

to 

the 

property 

relies 

on 

a 

subjective, closed vetting loop requiring individuals to reach out to an 

5

individual 

administrator. 

This unstructured arrangement resembles 

a 

private, selective, hospitality operation rather than 

a public, accessible 

charity. 

6. No Relief of Government Burden: Petitioner's use of the 

property as a short-term rental, commercial lodging establishment, and 

social venue fails to relieve any legal or practical burden of the state or 

local government, which 

is 

a mandatory prerequisite for 

a charitable 

exemption under Wexford. 

7. Failure of Regular Physical Occupancy Mandates: To qualify 

for exemption under MCL 211.70(1), the petitioner must demonstrate 

regular, continuous, and necessary physical occupancy of the property 

to carry out its core charitable mission. Petitioner owns multiple distinct 

real 

estate 

parcels 

across 

four 

townships, 

including 

the 

property 

commonly known as the ‘Scott Lake House.” Petitioner does not occupy 

or utilize the Scott Lake House for an ongoing charitable gift or service; 

rather 

Petitioner 

utilizes 

and/or 

holds 

this 

parcel 

as 

intermittent, 

seasonal, 

or commercial overflow housing 

to 

support 

its short-term 

VRBO rental operations, bed and breakfast capacity, and commercial 

event venue. Such passive, seasonal or secondary accommodation use 

fails the strict physical occupancy standards required by Michigan law. 

8. Strict Construction of Tax Exemption: Under established 

Jurisprudence, 

tax exemption statuses must 

be strictly construed 

in 

favor of the taxing authority. Petitioner bears the absolute burden of 

proof, and any ambiguity or failure to produce foundational financial and 

organizational records must result in a denial of the exemption. 

9. Reservation of Rights: Respondent reserves the right to amend 

the 

Affirmative 

Defenses 

to 

add 

any 

additional defenses, 

including 

procedural 

or jurisdictional defenses, as may be revealed through the 

course of discovery.

WHEREFORE, 

Respondent respectfully requests that the Honorable 

Tribunal 

enter judgment 

in 

its 

favor, 

deny 

Petitioner's 

request 

for 

tax-exempt 

status 

under 

MCL 

211.70, 

affirm 

Respondents 

tax 

assessments for the tax year 2026, and grant Respondent such other 

relief as the Tribunal deems just and fair. 

Dated: October 21, 2026 

espectfully Submitted, 

(Ps 

Wai TTT 

Danielle Golembiewski, MAAO R-9767 

Authorized Representative & Assessor for Respondent 

Township of Arlington 

52022 34" Ave 

Bangor, MI, 49013 

269-225-9006 

Assessor@ArlingtonTownship.com

← View full record