Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 205 / Act 186 of 1973
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.725 (2026)

Principal office of tribunal and chief clerk; accommodations and equipment; legal, technical, and secretarial assistance; restrictions on clerks or employees; salaries and expenses of tribunal.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TAX TRIBUNAL ACT


Act 186 of 1973


205.725 Principal office of tribunal and chief clerk; accommodations and equipment; legal, technical, and secretarial assistance; restrictions on clerks or employees; salaries and expenses of tribunal.

Sec. 25.

    (1) The principal office of the tribunal and its chief clerk shall be in the city of Lansing, and the department of administration shall furnish suitable accommodations and equipment there.

    (2) Subject to appropriations therefor, the tribunal shall have such legal, technical, and secretarial assistance as the chairman deems necessary.

    (3) A clerk or employee of the tribunal shall not provide legal, accounting, or technical assistance relevant to a federal, state or local tax matter, or to any other matter of which the tribunal may acquire jurisdiction.

    (4) Salaries and expenses of the tribunal shall be paid as provided by law.

History: 1973, Act 186, Eff. July 1, 1974

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2014–2014 · leading case: Victor Eggleston v. Twp. of Handy (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Victor Eggleston v. Twp. of Handy (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 205.725(6). And because the jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal are “limited to those authorized by statute,” the tribunal lacks equitable power to preserve petitioners’ challenge.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.725(6) — 1 case
Victor Eggleston v. Twp. of Handy (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 205.725(6). And because the jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal are “limited to those authorized by statute,” the tribunal lacks equitable power to preserve petitioners’ challenge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.