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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.752 (2026)

Tax tribunal; decisions or orders final and conclusive; copies; costs.

✓ 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


205.752 Tax tribunal; decisions or orders final and conclusive; copies; costs.

Sec. 52.

    (1) A decision or order of the tribunal is final and conclusive on all parties, unless reversed, remanded, or modified on appeal. A copy of the decision or order shall be mailed forthwith to each party or his attorney of record. Costs may be awarded in the discretion of the tribunal.

    (2) The tribunal may order a rehearing upon written motion made by a party within 21 days after the entry of the decision or order. A decision or order may be amended or vacated after the rehearing.

History: 1973, Act 186, Eff. July 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 125, Imd. Eff. May 9, 2008

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Keith Winter v. Twp. of Manistee (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Keith Winter v. Twp. of Manistee (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “See MCL 205.752(2). At about this time, petitioners mailed to the Tribunal a motion for reconsideration.”
Great Lakes Guardians v. Twp. of Sims (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “This rule provides that “[t]he tribunal may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a contested case, as provided by section 52 of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.752.” Rule 209(1). This rule does not limit the award of costs to a prevailing party, and does not provide…”
Peach Tree Ass'n LLC v. Twp. of Henrietta (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Therefore, he did not raise the issue with the Tribunal in that motion. -2- This appeal followed.”
Peach Tree Ass'n LLC v. Twp. of Henrietta (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Therefore, he did not raise the issue with the Tribunal in that motion. -2- This appeal followed.”
Betty D Mercer v. Muskegon Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “If an attorney or authorized representative is appearing on behalf of that party, then service shall be made on the attorney or authorized representative at his or her last known mailing or e-mail address, as provided in section 52 of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.752. Service…”
Betty D Mercer v. Muskegon Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “If an attorney or authorized representative is appearing on behalf of that party, then service shall be made on the attorney or authorized representative at his or her last known mailing or e-mail address, as provided in section 52 of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.752. Service…”
Eleticia Qualls v. Twp. of Goodland (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “2 Moreover, this interpretation arguably is consistent with MCL 205.752(1), which generally provides that “[c]osts may be awarded in the discretion of the tribunal.”
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 725 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “The limited issue presented to the Tax Tribunal was whether plaintiffs could take the SBT credits for association payments directly against their retaliatory taxes, and the tribunal correctly held that they could not.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.752(1) — 2 cases
Eleticia Qualls v. Twp. of Goodland (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “2 Moreover, this interpretation arguably is consistent with MCL 205.752(1), which generally provides that “[c]osts may be awarded in the discretion of the tribunal.”
Great Lakes Guardians v. Twp. of Sims (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “This rule provides that “[t]he tribunal may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a contested case, as provided by section 52 of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.752.” Rule 209(1). This rule does not limit the award of costs to a prevailing party, and does not provide…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.752(2) — 1 case
Keith Winter v. Twp. of Manistee (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “See MCL 205.752(2). At about this time, petitioners mailed to the Tribunal a motion for reconsideration.”
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.