Distro 10 Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Warren, Respondent

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 

Distro 10 Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On August 20, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order Holding Petitioner in Default entered in this case on July 30, 2025, which also 

noted that dismissal of the case was not appropriate despite not being filed within 35 

days of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision because the decision did not cite 

the specific 35-day deadline for eligible manufacturing personal property (EMPP) 

exemption appeals.1 In the motion, Respondent states that the BOR decision did not 

provide any inaccurate appeal information, and Petitioner’s obvious knowledge of MCL 

211.9m and MCL 211.9n (via its request for exemption under said statutes) put it on 

notice of the need to appeal to the Tribunal within 35 days. Further, the Supreme Court 

made it clear in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp,2 that the Tribunal has no equitable power and 

therefore cannot waive a statutory filing deadline; the Supreme Court only examined the 

due process issue in that case to see if the taxpayer could invoke its own judicial power 

to waive the jurisdictional requirements. If Petitioner believes its due process has been 

violated, relief must be sought from a judicial body with powers of equity and the 

authority to consider such constitutional questions. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Respondent 

has demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order Holding Petitioner in Default 

that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.3 Specifically, upon further review and 

examination of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sixarp, the Tribunal agrees with 

Respondent’s interpretation of that case. The Supreme Court confirmed therein that 

MCL 205.735a “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when 

and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal's jurisdiction.”4 It notably held that the 

protest requirement of MCL 205.735a is not merely a procedural requirement for 

 

1 The BOR decision only referenced the May 31 deadline for commercial properties. 

2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

3 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

4 Sixarp, at 8 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 2 of 4 

 

perfecting an appeal before the Tribunal, but that it is an “express limitation” on its 

jurisdiction.5 The Court further held that this requirement “may only be waived by the 

court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the 

taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.”6 

 

In so holding, the Supreme Court stated that it agreed with the Tribunal “that it could not 

exercise jurisdiction because the Township's assessor denied the exemption before the 

Board met, and [the taxpayer] failed to file an appeal with the Board.”7 It further stated 

that “the MTT correctly explained that ‘because the Tribunal has no equitable power to 

waive

Page 3

MT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

DISTRO 10, INC., 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF WARREN, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001898 

Parcel No. 12-99-02-217-200 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ALAN SHAMOUN (P76992) 

JAMILA J. GARMO (P85952) 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

21445 Hoover Road, Suite 101 

Warren, MI 48089 

(248)808-5222 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE 

TRIBUNAL’S JULY 30, 2025 ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

Respondent, City of Warren, by and through its counsel, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

states the following in support of the above captioned Motion: 

1. 

Notice was issued to Petitioner on March 30, 2025 (hereinafter Board of Review’s 

Notice) that the March Board of Review had denied Petitioner’s appeal request for the Eligible 

Manufacturing Personal Property (hereinafter EMPP) exemption due to insufficient evidence.1 

2. 

Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition with the Tribunal on May 30, 2025 

appealing the aforementioned denial of its requested EMPP exemption under MCL 211.9m and/or 

MCL 211.9n.2 

 

1 Docket entry no. 2 at Exhibit B. 

2 Id.

Page 2

2

3. 

On July 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Holding Petitioner in Default 

based on Petitioner’s failure to “pay the full required petition filing fee under Tribunal rules.”3 

4. 

The Order went on to further state: 

[T]he Tribunal finds that dismissal is not appropriate at this time. 

Specifically, the petition was not filed within 35 days of the March 

Board of Review (BOR) decision as required by MCL 211.9m(2)(c). 

However, the BOR decision incorrectly states or implies that the 

appeal of commercial property was required to be filed with the 

Tribunal by May 31 and does not reference the more specific EMPP 

appeal deadline under statute. The notice of denial is not 

constitutionally sufficient if it does not include information about 

the appeal of that denial notice. See Six[a]rp LLC v Byron Twp, __ 

NW3d __ (2025 WL 921773) (2025). Here, while information was 

included, that information was not correct. Petitioner did submit the 

petition within the time period provided by the incorrect notice.4 

5. 

Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s conclusion Petitioner did not 

receive constitutionally sufficient notice as well as that dismissal of the above captioned appeal is 

not appropriate at this time. 

Grounds for Reconsideration 

6. 

TTR 261(1) provides that the Tribunal “may order a rehearing or reconsideration 

of any decision or order upon its own initiative or motion filed within 21 days after the entry of 

the decision or order sought to be reheard or reconsidered.” 

7. 

However, TTR 261(1) does not set forth an applicable standard of review nor does 

any other Tribunal rule. As such, pursuant to TTR 201(5), MCR 2.119(F)(3) provides the 

applicable standard. 

8. 

MCR 2.119(F)(3) states, in pertinent part, “a motion for rehearing or 

reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or 

 

3 Docket entry no. 8. 

4 Id.

Page 3

3

by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The moving party must demonstrate a palpable 

error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of 

the motion must result from correction of the error.” 

9. 

A palpable error has been defined as an error which is “easily perceptible, plain,

Page 4

4

Tribuna

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Distro 10 Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On August 20, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order Holding Petitioner in Default entered in this case on July 30, 2025, which also 

noted that dismissal of the case was not appropriate despite not being filed within 35 

days of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision because the decision did not cite 

the specific 35-day deadline for eligible manufacturing personal property (EMPP) 

exemption appeals.1 In the motion, Respondent states that the BOR decision did not 

provide any inaccurate appeal information, and Petitioner’s obvious knowledge of MCL 

211.9m and MCL 211.9n (via its request for exemption under said statutes) put it on 

notice of the need to appeal to the Tribunal within 35 days. Further, the Supreme Court 

made it clear in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp,2 that the Tribunal has no equitable power and 

therefore cannot waive a statutory filing deadline; the Supreme Court only examined the 

due process issue in that case to see if the taxpayer could invoke its own judicial power 

to waive the jurisdictional requirements. If Petitioner believes its due process has been 

violated, relief must be sought from a judicial body with powers of equity and the 

authority to consider such constitutional questions. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Respondent 

has demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order Holding Petitioner in Default 

that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.3 Specifically, upon further review and 

examination of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sixarp, the Tribunal agrees with 

Respondent’s interpretation of that case. The Supreme Court confirmed therein that 

MCL 205.735a “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when 

and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal's jurisdiction.”4 It notably held that the 

protest requirement of MCL 205.735a is not merely a procedural requirement for 

 

1 The BOR decision only referenced the May 31 deadline for commercial properties. 

2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

3 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

4 Sixarp, at 8 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 2 of 4 

 

perfecting an appeal before the Tribunal, but that it is an “express limitation” on its 

jurisdiction.5 The Court further held that this requirement “may only be waived by the 

court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the 

taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.”6 

 

In so holding, the Supreme Court stated that it agreed with the Tribunal “that it could not 

exercise jurisdiction because the Township's assessor denied the exemption before the 

Board met, and [the taxpayer] failed to file an appeal with the Board.”7 It further stated 

that “the MTT correctly explained that ‘because the Tribunal has no equitable power to 

waive

Page 3

MT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Distro 10 Inc, 

 

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Respondent. 

 

NOTICE OF NO ACTION 

 

TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

 

 

 

Entered: September 10, 2025 

 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

 

 

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DISTRO 10, INC., 

Petitioner, 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001898 

Parcel No. 12-99-02-217-200 

CITY OF WARREN, 

Respondent. 

__________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ALAN SHAMOUN (P76992) 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

 

JAMILA J. GARMO (P85952) 

 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

 

21445 Hoover Road, Suite 101 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

Warren, MI 48089 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

(248)808-5222 

 

 

 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248)731-3089 

__________________________________________________________________________/ 

PETITIONER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION 

NOW COMES Petitioner, DISTRO 10, INC., by and through counsel, Alan Shamoun and 

Jamila J. Garmo, and for its Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Partial 

Reconsideration, states: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Petitioner received the March Board of Review (“BOR”) notice dated March 20, 2025, 

which stated that Petitioner had until May 31, 2025 to file its appeal with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal for the Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (“EMPP”).1 

2. Petitioner’s reliance on the notice from the March BOR led the Petitioner to believe that it 

had until the due date stated in the notice and satisfied this requirement by filing one day prior, on 

May 30, 2025.2 

 

1 Docket Entry No. 2 at Exhibit D. 

2 Id.

Page 2

2 

 

3. On July 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Holding Petitioner in Default for an 

underpayment of the filing fees (which was timely cured and default was set-aside) and identified 

that Petitioner’s filing was not timely filed within the 35 days from the date in which the March 

BOR Notice was sent.3 

4. The Tribunal determined that dismissal of the Petition was “not appropriate at this 

time…[since] the BOR decision incorrectly states or implies that the appeal of commercial 

property was required to be filed with the Tribunal by May 31 and does not reference the more 

specific EMPP appeal deadline under statute”.4 

5. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration that Petitioner, first, did not receive 

constitutionally sufficient notice of the filing deadline and, second, that the dismissal of the Petition 

was not appropriate at this time.5 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

6. MCR 2.119(F)(3) explicitly prohibits rehearing when the motion “merely presents the same 

issues ruled on…either expressly or by reasonable implication.” The moving party must show both 

(1) a palpable error, and (2) that correction would compel a different outcome.6 

7. A “palpable error” is defined as an error which is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily 

visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest.”7 

III. NO NEW ISSUES PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT 

8. Respondent’s motion offers no new issues and no showing of palpable error, it fails at the 

threshold. On this procedural ground alone, the Tribunal should deny reconsideration without 

revisiting the merits. 

9. Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration misapplies the Sixarp ruling by misstating key 

facts and selectively reading Sixarp while ignoring its preservation of the due process exception 

applied here. 

 

3 See MCL 211.9m(2)(c). 

4 Docket Entry No. 8. 

5 Docket Entry No. 11. 

6 Luckow v. Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011). 

7 Id.

Page 3

3 

 

IV. NO PRESENCE OF PALPABLE ERROR 

10. The Tribunal correctly found the March 20, 2025 BOR Notice failed to meet constitutional 

due process standards and the specific statutory requirements in MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n. 

11. The BOR Notice had an affirmative misstatement of

Page 4

4

Page 5

5

Page 6

6

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

DISTRO 10, INC., 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF WARREN, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001898 

Parcel No. 12-99-02-217-200 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ALAN SHAMOUN (P76992) 

JAMILA J. GARMO (P85952) 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

21445 Hoover Road, Suite 101 

Warren, MI 48089 

(248)808-5222 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE 

TRIBUNAL’S JULY 30, 2025 ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

Respondent, City of Warren, by and through its counsel, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

states the following in support of the above captioned Motion: 

1. 

Notice was issued to Petitioner on March 30, 2025 (hereinafter Board of Review’s 

Notice) that the March Board of Review had denied Petitioner’s appeal request for the Eligible 

Manufacturing Personal Property (hereinafter EMPP) exemption due to insufficient evidence.1 

2. 

Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition with the Tribunal on May 30, 2025 

appealing the aforementioned denial of its requested EMPP exemption under MCL 211.9m and/or 

MCL 211.9n.2 

 

1 Docket entry no. 2 at Exhibit B. 

2 Id.

Page 2

2

3. 

On July 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Holding Petitioner in Default 

based on Petitioner’s failure to “pay the full required petition filing fee under Tribunal rules.”3 

4. 

The Order went on to further state: 

[T]he Tribunal finds that dismissal is not appropriate at this time. 

Specifically, the petition was not filed within 35 days of the March 

Board of Review (BOR) decision as required by MCL 211.9m(2)(c). 

However, the BOR decision incorrectly states or implies that the 

appeal of commercial property was required to be filed with the 

Tribunal by May 31 and does not reference the more specific EMPP 

appeal deadline under statute. The notice of denial is not 

constitutionally sufficient if it does not include information about 

the appeal of that denial notice. See Six[a]rp LLC v Byron Twp, __ 

NW3d __ (2025 WL 921773) (2025). Here, while information was 

included, that information was not correct. Petitioner did submit the 

petition within the time period provided by the incorrect notice.4 

5. 

Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s conclusion Petitioner did not 

receive constitutionally sufficient notice as well as that dismissal of the above captioned appeal is 

not appropriate at this time. 

Grounds for Reconsideration 

6. 

TTR 261(1) provides that the Tribunal “may order a rehearing or reconsideration 

of any decision or order upon its own initiative or motion filed within 21 days after the entry of 

the decision or order sought to be reheard or reconsidered.” 

7. 

However, TTR 261(1) does not set forth an applicable standard of review nor does 

any other Tribunal rule. As such, pursuant to TTR 201(5), MCR 2.119(F)(3) provides the 

applicable standard. 

8. 

MCR 2.119(F)(3) states, in pertinent part, “a motion for rehearing or 

reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or 

 

3 Docket entry no. 8. 

4 Id.

Page 3

3

by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The moving party must demonstrate a palpable 

error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of 

the motion must result from correction of the error.” 

9. 

A palpable error has been defined as an error which is “easily perceptible, plain,

Page 4

4

Tribuna

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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

Distro 10 Inc, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898

City Of Warren,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that Petitioner 

was held in default on July 30, 2025, and the default has been timely cured. The 

documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on 

the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and 

clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 15, 2025

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

Page 2

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

Distro 10 Inc, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898

City Of Warren,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that Petitioner 

was held in default on July 30, 2025, and the default has been timely cured. The 

documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on 

the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and 

clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 15, 2025

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 1 8 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Distro 10 Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

City of Warren, 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

Patricia L. Halm 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Petitioner filed a petition on 

May 30, 2025, appealing Respondent's denial of Petitioner's eligible manufacturing 

personal property (EMPP) exemption claim under MCL 211.9m and/or MCL 211.9n. 

However, Petitioner did not pay the full required petition filing fee under Tribunal rules.’ 

Petitioner is therefore subject to default. 

Further, the Tribunal finds that dismissal is not appropriate at this time. 

Specifically, the 

petition was not filed within 35 days of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision as 

required by MCL 211.9m(2)(c). 

However, the BOR decision incorrectly states or implies 

that the appeal of commercial property was required to be filed with the Tribunal by May 

31 and does not reference the more specific EMPP appeal deadline under statute. The 

notice of denial is not constitutionally sufficient if it does not include information about 

the appeal of that denial notice. Here, while information was included, that information 

was not correct. 

Petitioner did submit the petition within the time period provided by the 

incorrect notice. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: pay the remaining petition filing fee owed. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of entry of this Order. 

1 The state equalized and taxable values in dispute are each $1,450,000. See Petitioner's Petition at 

Exhibit D. Those amounts require the payment of a $600.00 petition filin

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 2 of 2 

Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to 

set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). 

) 

vl 

Entered: July 30, 2025 

By 

alice 

Hatin 

bw/am 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| 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

Page 3

Distro 10 Inc. 

21445 Hoover Road 

5 

ALG 

2025 

PLS 

; 

—

Suite 101 

AG - 4 

i

Warren, MI 48089 

8/

State of Michigan 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

PO Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Distro 10 Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Petitioner filed a petition on 

May 30, 2025, appealing Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s eligible manufacturing 

personal property (EMPP) exemption claim under MCL 211.9m and/or MCL 211.9n. 

However, Petitioner did not pay the full required petition filing fee under Tribunal rules.1 

Petitioner is therefore subject to default.2 

 

Further, the Tribunal finds that dismissal is not appropriate at this time. Specifically, the 

petition was not filed within 35 days of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision as 

required by MCL 211.9m(2)(c). However, the BOR decision incorrectly states or implies 

that the appeal of commercial property was required to be filed with the Tribunal by May 

31 and does not reference the more specific EMPP appeal deadline under statute. The 

notice of denial is not constitutionally sufficient if it does not include information about 

the appeal of that denial notice.3 Here, while information was included, that information 

was not correct. Petitioner did submit the petition within the time period provided by the 

incorrect notice. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: pay the remaining petition filing fee owed. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of entry of this Order.4 

 

1 The state equalized and taxable values in dispute are each $1,450,000. See Petitioner’s Petition at 

Exhibit D. Those amounts require the payment of a $600.00 petition filing fee. See TTR 223(2)(a)(ii). 

Petitioner’s petition filing included a $150.00 filing fee, leaving $450.00 owed. 

2 See TTR 237. 

3 See SixArp LLC v Byron Twp, __ NW3d __ (2025 WL 921773) (2025). 

4 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an 

illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission 

by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to 

set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). 

 

 

Entered: July 30, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw/am 

 

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 

 

 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DISTRO 10 INC. 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

Parcel Nos. 

 12-99-02-217-200 

v. 

CITY OF WARREN, 

Respondent. 

Alan Shamoun (P76992) 

Jamila J Garmo (P85952) 

General Counsel 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

21445 Hoover Road 

Suite 101 

Warren, Michigan 48089 

Direct: (248)808-5222 

Email: alan@mgmt10.com 

Tax Year 2025 Petition of Personal Property Classification 

Petitioner, Distro 

10, Inc. (“Petitioner”), by and through their General Counsel, Alan 

Shamoun and Jamila J. Garmo. for their Petition against Respondent, City of Warren, state as 

follows: 

Subject Personal Property 

1. 

Petitioner is a Michigan corporation.

Page 2

99-02-217-200, 

located 

at 21445 Hoover Road, 

Suite 

302, 

Warren, Michigan 48089 

(the 

“Subject Personal Property”). 

4. 

Petitioner is identified as the taxpayer on the assessment roll for the Subject 

Personal Property. 

5. 

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to the taxable status and property tax 

assessment of the Subject Personal Property under MCL 205.735a(6). 

6. 

For tax year 2025, the Subject Personal Property was classified “Commercial 

Personal.” 

7. 

The Subject Personal Property was designed and presently used for industrial 

processing purposes. 

8. 

In particular, Petitioner’s use of the Subject Personal Property is in a state and city 

licensed marijuana processing facility where raw plant products are processed and made into fully 

compliant finished products ready for human consumption. 

9. 

Respondent, City of Warren (the “City™), 

is a city located in Macomb County, 

Michigan. 

General Allegations 

10. 

Petitioner, operates a cannabis processing facility operation at the Subject Real 

Property pursuant to sued medical and adult-use Licenses (AU-P-000416 & PR-000333), issued 

by the State of Michigan (the “Processing Facility”).

Page 3

Michigan. 

12. 

In particular, the Subject Personal Property includes, for example, (i) a C1D1 and 

C1D2 extraction booths with extraction equipment using both Ethanol and Butane for marijuana 

extraction; (ii) cart filling machines to make marijuana vape carts; (iii) a number of marijuana 

injection machines which inject processed marijuana concentrates into marijuana flower pre- 

rolls; and (4) machinery to take raw marijuana flower and turn it into pre-rolls. 

13. 

The subject personal property is actually used in industrial processing operations. 

2025 Assessment Protest to the Board of Review and Jurisdiction 

14. 

On February 

20, 

2025, 

Petitioner timely 

filed 

the 

“Eligible Manufacturing 

Personal Property Tax Exemption Claim, Personal Property Statement and Report of Fair Market 

Value of Qualified New and Previously Existing Personal Property” (Form 5278) (Exhibit A). 

15. 

Respondent issued an Assessor Denial letter of Form 5278 on March 3, 2025 

(Exhibit B). 

16. 

Petitioner then filed an appeal of the Denial 

of Form 5278 

for the Subject 

Personal Property with the March Board of Review on March 14, 2025 (Exhibit C). 

17. 

Petitioner timely submitted a protest to the Board in which it sought a change of 

the taxable status of the Subject Personal Property as exempt (a) under MCL 211.9(m) and MCL 

211.9(n) based on the Subject Personal Property’s use in industrial processing. 

18. 

The Board issued its decision, denying Petitioner’s Protest. (Exhibit D) 

19. 

Petitioner now appeals the Board’s decision.

Page 4

Property Exemption under MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n 

22. 

Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made above and 

below as though restated herein. 

23. 

This count involves issues relating to: (a) uniformity and (b) exemption. 

24. 

Petitioner claims the Subject Personal Property

Page 5

Resp

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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

Distro 10 Inc, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001898

City Of Warren, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: July 30, 2025

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

DISTRO 10, INC., 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF WARREN, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001898 

 

Parcel No. 12-99-02-217-200 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ALAN SHAMOUN (P76992) 

JAMILA J. GARMO (P85952) 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

21445 Hoover Road, Suite 101 

Warren, MI 48089 

(248)808-5222 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent, City of Warren, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

Subject Personal Property 

1. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

2

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 as to property type and address 

but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remaining 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to property type, location, and 

parcel number. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

4. 

Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph 4. 

5. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. 

Respondent denies that the subject property was used for industrial processing 

during the year in dispute. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond 

to the truth of the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 and, therefore, leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

8. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

9. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. 

General Allegations 

10. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

11. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 3

3

12. 

Respondent admits the subject parcel encompasses certain equipment but lacks the 

information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remainder of the allegations 

set forth and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 for the reasons stated in the 

preceding and proceeding paragraphs. 

2025 Assessment Protest to the Board of Review and Jurisdiction 

 

14. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 as Petitioner’s 

filings and General Property Tax Act speak for themselves. 

15. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 15. 

16. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 as Petitioner’s 

filing speak for themselves. 

17. 

Respondent admits

Page 4

4

21.

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-001898

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Warren (MACOMB)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates, P.C.

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/s/

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DISTRO 10 INC., 

MTT Docket No. 25- 001898 

Petitioner, 

Parcel Nos. 

12-99-02-217-200 

v. 

CITY OF WARREN, 

Respondent. 

Alan Shamoun (P76992) 

Jamila J Garmo (P85952) 

General Counsel 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

21445 Hoover Road 

Suite 101 

Warren, Michigan 48089 

Direct: (248)808-5222 

Email: alan@mgmt10.com 

Proof of Service 

Alan Shamoun states that on May 30, 2025, he served a copy of Petitioner’s Petition, with the docket number 

relative to the above captioned matter upon the parties named in the attached list: 

FF = 

Alan Shamota— 

001898

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

Clerk 

City Of Warren 

One City Square 

Warren, MI 48093 

Assessor 

City of Warren 

One City Square 

Warren, MI 48093 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

Clerk 

Macomb County 

Attn: F. Krycia Adm Bldg. 

1 S. Main St., 8th Floor 

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 

Director Of Equalization 

Macomb County 

Attn: F. Krycia Adm Bldg. 

1 S. Main St., 8th Floor 

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 

Secretary Of School Board 

Warren Consolidated School District (Macomb) 

31300 Anita Drive 

Warren, MI 48093-1697 

State Treasurer 

Michigan Department Of Treasury 

Treasury Building 

430 W. Allegan St. 

Lansing, MI 48922

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DISTRO 10 INC. 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

Parcel Nos. 

 12-99-02-217-200 

v. 

CITY OF WARREN, 

Respondent. 

Alan Shamoun (P76992) 

Jamila J Garmo (P85952) 

General Counsel 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

21445 Hoover Road 

Suite 101 

Warren, Michigan 48089 

Direct: (248)808-5222 

Email: alan@mgmt10.com 

Tax Year 2025 Petition of Personal Property Classification 

Petitioner, Distro 

10, Inc. (“Petitioner”), by and through their General Counsel, Alan 

Shamoun and Jamila J. Garmo. for their Petition against Respondent, City of Warren, state as 

follows: 

Subject Personal Property 

1. 

Petitioner is a Michigan corporation.

Page 2

99-02-217-200, 

located 

at 21445 Hoover Road, 

Suite 

302, 

Warren, Michigan 48089 

(the 

“Subject Personal Property”). 

4. 

Petitioner is identified as the taxpayer on the assessment roll for the Subject 

Personal Property. 

5. 

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to the taxable status and property tax 

assessment of the Subject Personal Property under MCL 205.735a(6). 

6. 

For tax year 2025, the Subject Personal Property was classified “Commercial 

Personal.” 

7. 

The Subject Personal Property was designed and presently used for industrial 

processing purposes. 

8. 

In particular, Petitioner’s use of the Subject Personal Property is in a state and city 

licensed marijuana processing facility where raw plant products are processed and made into fully 

compliant finished products ready for human consumption. 

9. 

Respondent, City of Warren (the “City™), 

is a city located in Macomb County, 

Michigan. 

General Allegations 

10. 

Petitioner, operates a cannabis processing facility operation at the Subject Real 

Property pursuant to sued medical and adult-use Licenses (AU-P-000416 & PR-000333), issued 

by the State of Michigan (the “Processing Facility”).

Page 3

Michigan. 

12. 

In particular, the Subject Personal Property includes, for example, (i) a C1D1 and 

C1D2 extraction booths with extraction equipment using both Ethanol and Butane for marijuana 

extraction; (ii) cart filling machines to make marijuana vape carts; (iii) a number of marijuana 

injection machines which inject processed marijuana concentrates into marijuana flower pre- 

rolls; and (4) machinery to take raw marijuana flower and turn it into pre-rolls. 

13. 

The subject personal property is actually used in industrial processing operations. 

2025 Assessment Protest to the Board of Review and Jurisdiction 

14. 

On February 

20, 

2025, 

Petitioner timely 

filed 

the 

“Eligible Manufacturing 

Personal Property Tax Exemption Claim, Personal Property Statement and Report of Fair Market 

Value of Qualified New and Previously Existing Personal Property” (Form 5278) (Exhibit A). 

15. 

Respondent issued an Assessor Denial letter of Form 5278 on March 3, 2025 

(Exhibit B). 

16. 

Petitioner then filed an appeal of the Denial 

of Form 5278 

for the Subject 

Personal Property with the March Board of Review on March 14, 2025 (Exhibit C). 

17. 

Petitioner timely submitted a protest to the Board in which it sought a change of 

the taxable status of the Subject Personal Property as exempt (a) under MCL 211.9(m) and MCL 

211.9(n) based on the Subject Personal Property’s use in industrial processing. 

18. 

The Board issued its decision, denying Petitioner’s Protest. (Exhibit D) 

19. 

Petitioner now appeals the Board’s decision.

Page 4

Property Exemption under MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n 

22. 

Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made above and 

below as though restated herein. 

23. 

This count involves issues relating to: (a) uniformity and (b) exemption. 

24. 

Petitioner claims the Subject Personal Property

Page 5

Resp

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Distro 10 Inc.

Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

21445 Hoover Road

Suite 101

City or Town

Warren

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48089

Telephone Number

2488085222

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

jamie@mgmt10.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Alan

M.I.

Last Name

Shamoun

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

21445 Hoover Road

Suite 101

City or Town

Warren

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48089

Telephone Number

248-808-5222

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

alan@mgmt10.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Classification – Fill out Sections 4, & 9 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

21445 Hoover Road

Suite 302

Warren

Michigan

48089

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Warren (MACOMB)

County

Macomb

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

Classification of Property: 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

12-99-02-217-200

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Personal 

Commercial

What do you believe is the property’s classification? Personal

Industrial

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

Manufacturing marijuana products for consumption

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Manufacturing marijuana products for consumption

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.