Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.735

Applicability before January 1, 2007; de novo proceedings; jurisdiction in assessment disputes; petition to invoke jurisdiction; service; appeal of contested tax bill; amendment of petition or answer; representation.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TAX TRIBUNAL ACT

Act 186 of 1973

205.735 Applicability before January 1, 2007; de novo proceedings; jurisdiction in assessment disputes; petition to invoke jurisdiction; service; appeal of contested tax bill; amendment of petition or answer; representation.

Sec. 35.

(1) The provisions of this section apply to a proceeding before the tribunal that is commenced before January 1, 2007.

(2) A proceeding before the tribunal is original and independent and is considered de novo. For an assessment dispute as to the valuation of property or if an exemption is claimed, the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute under subsection (3), except as otherwise provided in this section for a year in which the July or December board of review has authority to determine a claim of exemption for qualified agricultural property or for an appeal of a denial of a principal residence exemption by the department of treasury, and in section 37(5) and (7). For a dispute regarding a determination of a claim for exemption of qualified agricultural property for a year in which the July or December board of review has authority to determine a claim of exemption for qualified agricultural property, the claim for exemption must be presented to either the July or December board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute. For a special assessment dispute, the special assessment must be protested at the hearing held for the purpose of confirming the special assessment roll before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute.

(3) The jurisdiction of the tribunal in an assessment dispute is invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition on or before June 30 of the tax year involved. Except in the residential property and small claims division, a written petition is considered filed by June 30 of the tax year involved if it is sent by certified mail on or before June 30 of that tax year. In the residential property and small claims division, a written petition is considered filed by June 30 of the tax year involved if it is postmarked by first-class mail or delivered in person on or before June 30 of the tax year involved. All petitions required to be filed or served by a day during which the offices of the tribunal are not open for business shall be filed by the next business day. In all other matters, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition within 35 days after the final decision, ruling, determination, or order that the petitioner seeks to review. Except in the residential property and small claims division, a written petition is considered filed if it is sent by certified mail or delivered in person on or before expiration of the period in which an appeal may be made as provided by law. In the residential property and small claims division, a written petition is considered filed if it is postmarked by first-class mail or delivered in person on or before expiration of the period in which an appeal may be made as provided by law. An appeal of a contested tax bill shall be made within 60 days after mailing by the assessment district treasurer and the appeal is limited solely to correcting arithmetic errors or mistakes and is not a basis of appeal as to disputes of valuation of the property, the property's exempt status, or the property's equalized value resulting from equalization of its assessment by the county board of commissioners or the state tax commission. Service of the petition on the respondent shall be by certified mail. For an assessment dispute, service of the petition shall be mailed to the assessor of that governmental unit if the respondent is the local governmental unit. Except for petitions filed under chapter 6, a copy of the petition shall also be sent to the secretary of the school board in the local school district in which the property is located and to the clerk of any county that may be affected.

(4) The petition or answer may be amended at any time by leave of the tribunal and in compliance with its rules. If a tax was paid while the determination of the right to the tax is pending before the tribunal, the taxpayer may amend his or her petition to seek a refund of that tax.

(5) A person or legal entity may appear before the tribunal in his or her own behalf or may be represented by an attorney or by any other person.

History: 1973, Act 186, Eff. July 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 365, Imd. Eff. Dec. 23, 1976 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 163, Imd. Eff. July 24, 1983 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 95, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1985 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 23, Imd. Eff. Apr. 24, 1987 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 65, Eff. July 31, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 254, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1994 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 165, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2000 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 131, Eff. Jan. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 174, Imd. Eff. May 30, 2006

Compiler's Notes:

Section 2 of Act 95 of 1985 provides: “This amendatory act, which codifies the petition filing provisions of Rule 201 and Rule 620 of the Michigan tax tribunal, being R 205.1201 and R 205.1620 of the Michigan Administrative Code, is curative in nature and shall be retroactively effective from July 31, 1975.”

AdminRule Notes:

R 205.1101 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 109 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Wikman v. City of Novi

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wikman v. City of Novi (1982) mich · cites it 26× “MCL 205.735; MSA 7.650(35), the only provision establishing procedures for invoking the jurisdiction of the tribunal, provides: "The jurisdiction of the tribunal shall be invoked by the filing of a written petition by a party in interest, as petitioner, within 30 days after the…”

WA FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSP. v. City of Jackson (2004) michctapp · cites it 20× “§ 205.735. Petitioner sent its tax appeal petitions on July 1, 2002, via Federal Express.”

W A Foote Memorial Hospital v. City of Jackson (2004) michctapp · cites it 20× “Following adverse decisions by the respective boards of review, petitioner sought appeals before the Tax Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.735. Petitioner sent its tax appeal petitions on July 1, 2002, via Federal Express.”

Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Flint Township (2003) michctapp · cites it 13× “On October 14, 1999, the Tax Tribunal entered identical orders of dismissal in each case, which state: The Tribunal, having reviewed the file in the above-captioned case, finds that the petition is untimely as it was not received by June 30 of the tax year involved or mailed by…”

Briggs Tax Service, LLC v. Detroit Public Schools (2010) mich · cites it 8× “However, when another statute provides a different limitations period for filing a petition with the Tax Tribunal, that statute controls and MCL 205.735 does not apply. 16 Germane to this appeal is MCL 211.”

Ford Motor Company v. City of Woodhaven (2006) mich · cites it 4× “The MTT concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 205.735 because Ford did not protest the assessments to the Romeo Board of Review.”

Great Lakes Div. v. City of Ecorse (1998) michctapp · cites it 6× “Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra at 354-355, 483 N.W.2d 416 .”

Great Lakes Division of National Steel Corp. v. City of Ecorse (1998) michctapp · cites it 6× “The burden of proof encompasses two concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not *409 shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, supra at 354-355.”

Michigan Properties, LLC v. Meridian Township (2012) mich · cites it 3× “732 sets forth the tribunal’s powers in reviewing a taxing authority’s decision once the tribunal’s jurisdiction is properly invoked under MCL 205.735 or MCL 205.735a(6). It provides 46 in pertinent part: *543 The tribunal’s powers include, but are not limited to, all of the…”

Spartan Stores, Inc v. City of Grand Rapids (2014) michctapp · cites it 7× “” The tribunal’s jurisdiction with regard to proceedings commenced before January 1, 2007, was strictly limited by MCL 205.”

Szymanski v. City of Westland (1985) mich · cites it 16× “It does not contain any language prohibiting the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction in cases filed later than 30 days after a final ruling or receipt of a tax bill.”

Toaz v. Department of Treasury (2008) michctapp · cites it 4× “] Section 35 of the Tax Tribunal Act, MCL 205.735, addresses the manner for perfecting an appeal.”

Show all 109 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.735(1) — 35 cases

Wikman v. City of Novi (1982) mich “MCL 205.735; MSA 7.650(35), the only provision establishing procedures for invoking the jurisdiction of the tribunal, provides: "The jurisdiction of the tribunal shall be invoked by the filing of a written petition by a party in interest, as petitioner, within 30 days after the…”

Workers' Compensation Agency Director v. MacDonald's Industrial Products, Inc. (2014) michctapp

Walgreen Co. v. MacOmb Township (2008) michctapp

Great Lakes Div. v. City of Ecorse (1998) michctapp “Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra at 354-355, 483 N.W.2d 416 .”

Great Lakes Division of National Steel Corp. v. City of Ecorse (1998) michctapp “The burden of proof encompasses two concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not *409 shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, supra at 354-355.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.735(2) — 39 cases

WA FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSP. v. City of Jackson (2004) michctapp “§ 205.735. Petitioner sent its tax appeal petitions on July 1, 2002, via Federal Express.”

W A Foote Memorial Hospital v. City of Jackson (2004) michctapp “Following adverse decisions by the respective boards of review, petitioner sought appeals before the Tax Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.735. Petitioner sent its tax appeal petitions on July 1, 2002, via Federal Express.”

Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Flint Township (2003) michctapp “On October 14, 1999, the Tax Tribunal entered identical orders of dismissal in each case, which state: The Tribunal, having reviewed the file in the above-captioned case, finds that the petition is untimely as it was not received by June 30 of the tax year involved or mailed by…”

Briggs Tax Service, LLC v. Detroit Public Schools (2010) mich “However, when another statute provides a different limitations period for filing a petition with the Tax Tribunal, that statute controls and MCL 205.735 does not apply. 16 Germane to this appeal is MCL 211.”

Leahy v. Orion Township (2006) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.735(3) — 19 cases

Spartan Stores, Inc v. City of Grand Rapids (2014) michctapp “” The tribunal’s jurisdiction with regard to proceedings commenced before January 1, 2007, was strictly limited by MCL 205.”

Walgreen Co. v. MacOmb Township (2008) michctapp

Michigan's Adventure, Inc. v. Dalton Township (2010) michctapp

Great Lakes Div. v. City of Ecorse (1998) michctapp “Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra at 354-355, 483 N.W.2d 416 .”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.735(4) — 2 cases

Northwood Apartments v. City of Royal Oak (1980) michctapp

Turner v. Lansing Township (1981) michctapp

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.