RSAA Property LLC.pdf
Rsaa Property LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Imlay City, Respondent · 25-001710-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
RECEIVED APR 80 2025 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL STATE OF MICHIGAN Py 00 oT DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS = IN THE MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 1995 Cedar Street LLC, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v Docket No. 25- City of Imlay City Parcel No. 44-119-85-253-040-00 Respondent. TranInfo:4606 26005015-1 04/28/25 PROPERTY TAX PETITION (hj: 5017 nt: $1,325.00 (Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) [[: [UA Ad0R] [A045 Ceddx Steck-%100.°C gin fein db joni BO Petitioner contends: ivan Hodingy a op BHD. sh @-Yroperty 2338.0 Is The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number | 44-119-85-253-040-00 Address 1995 S. Cedar Street Classification 201 Comm Imp Use Medical Office County Lapeer Sch Dist | Imlay City Community School District 2. N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: [OJ March, [0 July, OO December Board of Review. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 4. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. 5. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 77 E. Long Lake Rd, Fl I, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2328. 6. This appeal involves issues related to:
Page 2
RECEIVED $s APR 3 0 2025 LN 9) STATE OF MICHIGHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS RSAA Property LLC, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v Docket No. 25- City of Imlay City, Parcel No.: 44-119-76-600-001-00, Respondent. and additional parcels PROPERTY TAX PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) Petitioner, by and through its representative, contends: 1. The property that is the subject of this appeal consists of these contiguous real property parcels: REAL PROPERTY - CONTIGUOUS Parcel Number ] Address Classification Use 44-119-76-600-001-00 572 N. Cedar Street Vacant Auto 201 Comm shop 44-119-76-602-001-00 525 E. Capac Road 201 Comm Vacant 44-120-27-300-040-02 632 N. Cedar Street 201 Comm Vacant 44-119-76-601-001-00 578 N. Cedar Street 201 Comm Vacant | 2. KIN/A. Ifthe assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: OO March, [OO July, 0 December Board of Review. | 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 4. The subject property is located in the County of Lapeer and school district of Imlay City Community School District. 5. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. 6. The Petitioners principal office/legal residence address is: 77 East Long Lake Road, 1st Floor,
Page 3
X O the subject property’s true cash and taxable values the subject property’s taxable value only there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: [J Yes [I No uniformity of the subject property’s assessment the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL 8. The tax year at issue is 2025. 9. The subject property is listed on the attachment, including, by parcel number: a. b. c. Respondent’s Board of Review established values, Petitioner’s value contentions, and Values in dispute. 10. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a. The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2025 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. an Hwan Iva Ammori
Page 4
ATTACHMENT TO PETITION (Subject Property) VALUES Respondent’s Board of Review -and- Petitioner’s Contention Respondent Petitioner Paras] Numb TCV SEV TV TCV SEV TV 44-119-76-600-001-00 353,200 176,600 176,600 260,000 130,000 130,000 44-119-76-602-001-00 128,600 64,300 64,300 75,000 37,500 37,500 44-120-27-300-040-02 223,400 111,700 111,700 175,000 87,500 87,500 44-119-76-601-001-00 163,200 81,600 81,600 90,000 45,000 45,000 Totals 868,400 434,200 434,200 600,000 300,000 300,000 VALUES IN DISPUTE Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 44-119-76-600-001-00 93,200 46,600 46,600 44-119-76-602-001-00 53,600 26,800 26,300 44-120-27-300-040-02 48,400 24,200 24,200 44-119-76-601-001-00 73,200 36,600 36,600 Totals 268,400 134,200 134,200
Page 5
Ammo EE 7a i» fot 3 ERs Retail BL - = Cm = 9589 0710 5270 2897 5153 05 [ichiqax Tax Jnibux J ail [ W- on Shot 0. 0) Bix 30232 Loma MT ego Eh Wiping ip
Page 6
p—— J—— p— what a 0.0 moyen — SE py Ir I Lery, ID 2 £19) MEE, h) 25, 2025 mn. 96s As, 1898-25