STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Act 44 of 1911
209.1 State board of equalization; creation; qualifications of appointees, term, vacancies.
Sec. 1.
There is hereby created a state board of equalization to consist of the state tax commission and 4 members appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. Five members constitute a quorum for all official business: Provided, however, That not more than 2 members of the said quorum shall be members of the state tax commission. One of the appointed members shall be a person having knowledge of rural property values and experience in the administration of property tax assessments in this state. One of the members shall be a person having experience in the valuation of urban property valuations and in the administration of property tax assessments in this state. One of the members shall have experience in the valuation of industrial and commercial property and in the administration of property tax assessments in this state. The other member shall be a person having knowledge of and experience in local government finance in this state. Within 60 days after the effective date of this 1962 amendatory act, the governor shall appoint the 4 members, 1 for a term of 4 years, 1 for a term of 3 years, 1 for a term of 2 years, and 1 for a term of 1 year. Their successors shall be appointed for terms of 4 years each. With the exception of the state tax commission, no appointed member of this board shall hold any other state office that has any power to appropriate or levy tax funds nor shall he have served as a member of the state tax commission for any period within 3 years prior to his appointment. Vacancies in the membership shall be filled in like manner for the unexpired term. The board shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as are herein prescribed.
History: 1911, Act 44, Imd. Eff. Apr. 5, 1911 ;-- CL 1915, 160 ;-- Am. 1919, Act 330, Imd. Eff. May 13, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 3696 ;-- CL 1948, 209.1 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 30, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 1957 ;-- Am. 1962, Act 194, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963
TransferOfPowers Notes:
See MCL 16.186.
PopularName Notes:
State Board of Equalization Act
Notes of Decisions
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 4× “657[13]; and the State Board of Equalization, 1911 PA 44 ; MCL 209.1; MSA 7.601) were constituted to provide a means for the administration of, and for review of decisions relating to, state taxes and not local taxes or assessments.”
WPW Acquisition Co. v. City of Troy, 646 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “If the county board of commissioners concludes that an inequality exists, "they must equalize to `produce a sum which represents the true cash value of the property.'" Allied Supermarkets, Inc.”
Saginaw Cnty. v. State Tax Comm'n, 220 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 3× “3 MCLA 209.1 et seq.; MSA 7.601 et seq. 4 See People v Mahaney, 13 Mich 481 (1865); Fornia v Wayne Circuit Judge, 140 Mich 631 ; 104 NW 147 (1905); People v Stimer,”
Brittany Park Apts. v. Harrison Twp., 304 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“44 of the Public Acts of 1911, as amended, being sections 209.1 to 209.8 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, total property taxes levied shall not exceed that which would have been levied if there had been no increase in valuation by the state * * *.”
DeWitt Twp. v. Clinton Cnty., 319 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“44 of the Public Acts of 1911, as amended, being sections 209.1 to 209.8 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, total property taxes levied shall not exceed that which would have been levied if there had not been an increase in valuation by the state.”
Twp. of Port Sheldon v. Ottawa Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 263 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“2 MCLA 209.1 et seq.; MSA 7.601 et seq. 3 For a more detailed explanation of the intricacies and effects of the equalization process see Emmet County v State Tax Commission 397 Mich 550, 559-569 ; 244 NW2d 909 (1976) (Williams, J.”
Fairplains Twp v. MONTCALM COMM'RS, 542 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Intracounty equalization is followed by intercounty or state equalization, which is conducted by the State Tax Commission in accordance with MCL 209.1 et seq. ; MSA 7.601 et seq. The total valuation of each county, as equalized by that county is reported to the commission.”
Fairplains Twp. v. Montcalm Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 214 Mich. App. 365 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Intracounty equalization is followed by inter-county or state equalization, which is conducted by the State Tax Commission in accordance with MCL 209.1 et seq.; MSA 7.601 et seq. The total valuation of each county, as equalized by that county is reported to the commission.”
Henshaw v. State Tax Comm'n, 338 N.W.2d 224 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“, because the county would benefit from an increase in local assessments as a result of the state equalization proceedings, plaintiffs’ interests were not represented at those proceedings._ *811 The constitution mandates that the Legislature provide for a system of equalization…”
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.