Petition - POS.pdf
Essco Lansing LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Lansing Charter Respondent · 26-000779-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Essco Lansing LLC, Petitioner, vs. Township of Lansing, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000779 _____________________________________________________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE (Property Tax Petition) On the date below I sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Petition to: Township Assessor Township of Lansing 3209 W Michigan Ave Lansing, MI 48917 Township Supervisor Township of Lansing 3209 W Michigan Ave Lansing, MI 48917 On the date below I sent by first class mail a copy of the Petition to: Equalization Director Ingham County PO Box 319, Courthouse 341 S Jefferson Mason, MI 48854 County Clerk Ingham County PO Box 179 341 S Jefferson Mason, MI 48854 Secretary, Board of Education Lansing School District 519 W Kalamazoo St Lansing, MI 48933 State Treasurer Department of Treasury 430 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48922 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan Dated: June 26, 2026
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS ESSCO LANSING LLC, Petitioner, v CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Respondent. MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Docket No. 26-000779 Parcel No. 33-21-01-02-402-009 _____________________________________________________________________________/ PROPERTY TAX PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., contends: 1. ☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number 33-21-01-02-402-009 Address 2710 Lake Lansing Rd. Classification 201-Commercial Imp Use Hotel County Ingham Sch Dist Lansing Public School District 2. ☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: ☐March, ☐ July, ☐ 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: 210 S. Woodward Ave., Suite 230, Birmingham, MI 48009. 6. This appeal involves issues related to: ☒ 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: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ uniformity of the subject property’s assessment ☐ the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______ 7. The tax year at issue is 2026.
Page 3
Petition 2 8. The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-402-009 6,043,800 3,021,900 2,644,525 9. Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-402-009 4,600,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 10. The values1 in dispute are. Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-402-009 1,443,800 721,900 344,525 11. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 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; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) 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 2026 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. 1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.
Page 4
Petition 3 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 Dated: May 7, 2026 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com Filing Fee: $600