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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.741 (2026)

Tax tribunal; proceedings before state tax commission or circuit court.

✓ 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


205.741 Tax tribunal; proceedings before state tax commission or circuit court.

Sec. 41.

    A person or legal entity which, immediately before the effective date of this act, was entitled to proceed before the state tax commission or circuit court of this state for determination of a matter subject to the tribunal's jurisdiction, as provided in section 31, shall proceed only before the tribunal.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 6× “The conclusion that the Tax Tribunal's jurisdiction is more extensive than that of the *641 State Tax Commission is also supported by the provisions of MCL 205.741; MSA 7.650(41) and MCL 205.771-205.”
Eyde v. Charter Twp. of Lansing, 261 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 8× “Under MCLA 205.741; MSA 7.650(41), one who could have proceeded before the state tax commission or a circuit court before enactment of the Tax Tribunal Act, must now proceed before the tribunal.”
Emmet Cnty. v. State Tax Comm'n, 244 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “Section 41 of the same act, MCLA 205.741; MSA 7.650(41), endows the tribunal with jurisdiction over actions which were heretofore reviewable by the State Tax Commission or by a circuit court.”
Jefferson Schs. v. Detroit Edison Co., 397 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Jefferson Schools further argues that it was a proper party before the Tax Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.741; MSA 7.650(41) and MCL 211.150(3); MSA 7.”
Superior Hotels, LLC v. MacKinaw Twp., 765 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” Jefferson Schools v Detroit Edison Co, 154 Mich App 390, 398 ; 397 NW2d 320 (1986) (emphasis in original), citing MCL 205.741 and Emmet Co v State Tax Comm, 397 Mich 550, 555 ; 244 NW2d 909 (1976).”
City of Detroit v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 258 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “” The exclusiveness of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is further spelled out in MCLA 205.741; MSA 7.650(41): "Sec. 41. A person or legal entity which, immediately before the effective date of this act, was entitled to proceed before the state tax commission or circuit court of this…”
State Treasurer v. Eaton, 284 N.W.2d 801 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “See also MCL 205.741; MSA 7.650(41), MCL 205.774; MSA 7.”
Xerox Corp. v. City of Kalamazoo, 255 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “” Under MCLA 205.741; MSA 7.650(41), the tribunal has jurisdiction over actions which were reviewable by the STC or by a circuit court.”
Richland Twp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 533 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “[MCL 205.741; MSA 7.650(41).] Section 7 of the Tax Tribunal Act provides that its provisions "are effective notwithstanding the provisions of any statute, charter, or law to the contrary.”
Washtenaw Cnty. v. State Tax Comm'n, 373 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. 1985). “MCL 205.741; MSA 7.650(41). In Emmet County v State Tax Comm, 397 Mich 550, 554 ; 244 NW2d 909 (1976), we held that equalization matters which both arise under the property laws and were appealable to the commission prior to the enactment of 1973 PA 186 are within the…”
W. & E. Burnside, Inc. v. Bangor Twp., 259 N.W.2d 160 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “In the event the supervisor or assessor shall increase the assessment of 30% or more of the parcels within the assessing district then the notice called for in this section shall not be required to be issued to the owners of property living within the district.”
Edros Corp. v. City of Port Huron, 259 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “” MCLA 205.741; MSA 7.650(41). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Port Huron City Council is not an "agency” within the terms of the act and contends that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the instant controversy since plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.