24-003581.pdf
Stephen C Zimmerman, Petitioner V Township Of Holmes, Respondent · 24-003581-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 Stephen C Zimmerman, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003581 Holmes Township, Case Type: Taxable Value Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Erissa J. Glekler, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: August 21, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Stephen C Zimmerman Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Brent Desjarlais PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s taxable value (TV) for the tax year at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 55-006-004-008-00 Year TV 2024 $76,000 2025 $78,356 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner protested the property’s TV to the 2024 March Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 3, 2024; Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 27, 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 TV for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether the property’s 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. 24-003581 Page 2 of 6 Pursuant to MCL 211.27a, 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 new construction and omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).3 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TV: Parcel Number: 55-006-004-008-00 Year TV 2024 $41,963 2025* *Petitioner did not provide value contentions for the 2025 tax year. The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 13 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 Respondent improperly uncapped the subject property’s TV for the 2024 tax year. After purchasing the property in 2023, Petitioner notified Respondent’s assessor that the assessment improperly included value for building improvements and needed to be corrected to reflect the value of the land only. Petitioner believes that Respondent and the BOR incorrectly calculated the property’s TV after the assessment was corrected. Petitioner obtained Respondent’s historic record of assessed value (AV) and TV for the property to calculate what the TV should be. Because the historic record does not allocate TV to land, Petitioner had to calculate TV based on a proration of the AV of the land to the total AV. Petitioner completed the calculation with data from 2020 and then used the inflation rate multiplier to increase what the TV should be for 2024.5 B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TV, as confirmed by the BOR: 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. 5 The 2020 AV of the land was $54,500, which is 28% (.2844467) of the total AV of $191,600, so Petitioner applied that factor to the 2020 TV of $127,746 to get to the indicated starting point of $36,337 for their TV calculation. Petitioner thereafter applied the inflation rate multiplier for the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax years to arrive at their contended TV of $41,963.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003581 Page 3 of 6 Parcel Number: 55-006-004-008-00 Year TV 2024 $76,000 2025 $78,356 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6-12 of the docket maintained in this case.6 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property’s TV was not uncapped as Petitioner contends; it was calculated after removing the buildings that were erroneously included in the assessment. This fact was not noticed by the previous owner or assessors, as all parcels and improvements involved were adjacent and under the same ownership. However, once the assessor was made aware of this along with the property sale and a land division as part of it, he took immediate action. As shown in the record cards, the structures and their associated values were removed from the subject property and moved to the correct parcel, Parcel No. 006-004-002-00. After land analysis, this led to the AV, state equalized value (SEV), and TV of the property being $76,000. The TV is the same as the SEV not because of an uncapping, but because the property’s capped TV was $85,152. The property is not subject to uncapping because Petitioner filed Form 3676 (Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property). The capped TV is what the TV would have been, but since TV cannot exceed the SEV, it was limited to $76,000. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located on N. 11995 P-1 Road in Menominee County. 2. The subject property is classified as agricultural. 3. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 2023 and thereafter filed Form 3676 (Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property) with Respondent’s assessor. 4. The subject property’s “capped” TV for the 2024 tax year is $144,853.7 5. The subject property’s assessment erroneously included value attributed to buildings that are located on a different parcel of real property; removal of those buildings from the subject’s 2024 assessment results in a corrected SEV of $76,000 for that year. 6 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. 7 2023 TV of $140,498 x 1.031 = $144,853. See MCL 211.27a(2)(a).
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003581 Page 4 of 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TV is determined pursuant to MCL 211.27a, and except for additions and losses, annual increases are generally limited to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.8 In that regard, MCL 211.27a(2) states that TV is the lesser of (1) “the property's [TV] in the immediately preceding year minus any losses, multiplied by the lesser of 1.05 or the inflation rate, plus all additions,”9 or (2) “the property's current [SEV].”10 This limit on increases is generally referred to as a “cap” on TV. In the year following a transfer of ownership, as defined in the statute, the TV is set equal to the SEV pursuant to MCL 211.27a(3), i.e., uncapped. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that “the provisions establishing taxable values in MCL 211.27a(2) and MCL 211.27a(3) are both mandatory and automatic. Both subsections unambiguously provide that the [TV] for a property falling under each respective subsection ‘is’ the value that results from the parameters contained in the applicable subsection.”11 There is no dispute in this case that Petitioner’s purchase of the property does not constitute a “transfer of ownership” for the purpose of MCL 211.27a(3) or the “uncapping” of TV pursuant to MCL 211.27a(7)(o), and the property’s 2024 TV must therefore be calculated pursuant to the mathematical formula set forth in MCL 211.27a(2). Petitioner’s TV calculations do not comport with this mandatory, statutory formula, and they therefore have no applicability or relevance for purposes of determining the property’s TV. Relative to Respondent’s calculations, the Tribunal notes that TV “losses” are defined by MCL 211.34d(1)(h). They include “property that has been destroyed or removed,”12 “property that was subject to ad valorem taxation . . . in the immediately preceding year that is now exempt from ad valorem taxation,”13 and “a decrease in [TV] attributable to environmental contamination existing on the immediately preceding tax day.”14 None of these definitions apply in this case. The only section that arguably applies is MCL 211.34d(1)(h)(i), but no property was destroyed or removed in this case. Instead, improvements associated with a different parcel of real property were erroneously included in the subject property’s assessment. This is a mere valuation issue, and the statute unfortunately does not provide for removal of that value from the subject’s TV calculation. As such, and inasmuch as the $144,853 TV indicated by MCL 211.27a(2)(a) for the 2024 tax year exceeds the corrected SEV of $76,000 for that year, MCL 211.27a(2)(b) governs, and the subject property’s TV is properly set equal to the “lesser” SEV amount. There were no additions or losses for the 2025 tax year, and the 2025 TV is therefore 8 MCL 211.27a(2). 9 MCL 211.27a(2)(a). 10 MCL 211.27a(2)(b). 11 Michigan Properties, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518, 531; 817 NW2d 548, 554 (2012) (emphasis added). 12 MCL 211.34d(1)(h)(i). 13 MCL 211.34d(1)(h)(ii). 14 MCL 211.34d(1)(h)(iv).
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003581 Page 5 of 6 calculated as follows: 2024 TV of $76,000 x 2025 inflation rate multiplier of 1.031 = $78,356. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. 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: October 13, 2025
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003581 Page 6 of 6 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