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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.774 (2026)

Right to sue agency for refund abolished; payments under protest not required.

✓ 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


205.774 Right to sue agency for refund abolished; payments under protest not required.

Sec. 74.

    The right to sue any agency for refund of any taxes other than by proceedings before the tribunal is abolished as of September 30, 1974. If a tax paid to an agency is erroneous or unlawful, it shall not be requisite that the payment be made under protest in order to invoke a right to refund by proceedings before the tribunal.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Romulus City Treasurer v. Wayne Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 322 N.W.2d 152 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Romulus City Treasurer v. Wayne Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 322 N.W.2d 152 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 8× “Similarly, MCL 205.774; MSA 7.650(74) provides: "The right to sue any agency for refund of any taxes other than by proceedings before the tribunal is abolished as of September 30, 1974.”
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “) MCL 205.774; MSA 7.650(74) provides: "The right to sue any agency for refund of any taxes other than by proceedings before the tribunal is abolished * * *.”
Eyde v. Charter Twp. of Lansing, 261 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “MCLA 205.774; MSA 7.650(74) abolishes the right to sue for a refund other than in proceedings before the tribunal.”
State Treasurer v. Eaton, 284 N.W.2d 801 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “650(41), MCL 205.774; MSA 7.650(74), and Xerox Corp v Kalamazoo, 76 Mich App 150 ; 255 NW2d 797 (1977).”
W. & E. Burnside, Inc. v. Bangor Twp., 259 N.W.2d 160 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “” MCLA 205.774; MSA 7.650(74). 5 Defendants interpret the phrase "[t]he failure of the property owner to receive notice * * * ” to mean the failure to send or receive notice.”
Johnson v. State, 317 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “) MCL 205.774; MSA 7.650(74). In the case of an assessment dispute regarding property valuation, the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the Tax *454 Tribunal can acquire jurisdiction.”
Imerman Screw Prods. Co. v. City of Hamtramck, 242 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “A careful review of the record fails to disclose that plaintiff in the instant case paid its taxes under protest, nor did it declare that it had exempt property on the sworn personal property tax assessment form.”
Steven R Gentry v. Charter Twp. of Clinton (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 13× “731(b) and MCL 205.774. The trial court further concluded that even if it had subject-matter jurisdiction, plaintiff’s case should still be dismissed because plaintiff lacked taxpayer standing and plaintiff’s action was untimely under Bigger v City of Pontiac, 390 Mich 1 ; 210…”
Wells Fargo Rail Corp v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “731 relates to the jurisdiction of the MTT and provides: The tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all of the following: (a) A proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment,…”
Esquire Dev. & Constr. Inc v. City of Mason (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× ““never divested itself of one hundred percent of its property interests in those parcels and the buildings constructed thereon,” that the tribunal had the authority to consider fraud claims for periods of time beyond the three previous years because the allegation was fraud, not…”
Geaniece D Carter v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Wikman v Novi, -2- 413 Mich 617, 645 ; 322 NW2d 103 (1982); see also MCL 205.774 (abolishing the right to sue any agency for a refund of taxes other than by a proceeding before the MTT).”
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.