Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 211 / Act 206 of 1893
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.18 (2026)

Repealed. 2002, Act 267, Imd. Eff. May 9, 2002.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ACT


Act 206 of 1893


211.18 Repealed. 2002, Act 267, Imd. Eff. May 9, 2002.

    Repealed. 2002, Act 267, Imd. Eff. May 9, 2002.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to statement of possessor of assessable property.

PopularName Notes:

Act 206
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1954–2004 · leading case: Covert Twp. Assessor v. State Tax Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Covert Twp. Assessor v. State Tax Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 2× “The personal property statement which Consumers properly filed, pursuant to MCL 211.18; MSA 7.18, specifically requests the reporting of the following information on page 2: "3.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Bruce Twp., 689 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Usually, the assessor then relies on this personal property statement to assess the taxes. Under the tribunal's ruling, any mistake in inclusion of exempt property or doubly reported property would always be a unilateral mistake because the taxpayer acts alone in creating the…”
Geiger v. City of Southfield (In Re Cont'l Credit Corp.), 1 B.R. 680 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1979). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 211.18 provides in part as follows: “Each supervisor or other assessing officer .”
Fisher v. Muller, 218 N.W.2d 821 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 3× “10; MCLA 211.18; MSA 7.18; MCLA 211.24; MSA 7.”
Ford Motor Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 255 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. 1977). “1 The sworn statement, required under § 13, is described in §§ 18 and 19 (MCLA 211.18; MSA 7.18 and MCLA 211.19; MSA 7.”
In Re Appeal of Gen. Motors Corp., 137 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 1965). “"In view of the findings in the personal property study plus the continued failure of the assessor to adequately check the reports, the State tax commission must consider the findings described above as superior to any other representations brought forward for consideration.”
Cont'l Motors Corp. v. Twp. of Muskegon, 133 N.W.2d 163 (Mich. 1965). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff did not file a sworn statement of taxable personal property in its possession as required by CL 1948, § 211.18 (Stat Ann § 7.18). Continental furnished only a gross figure, including all personal property.”
Wright v. Bartz, 62 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. 1954). “* CL 11948, § 211.18 (Stat Anri 1950 Rev § 7.18). † CL 1948, § 211.”
City of Livonia v. State Tax Comm'n, 137 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 1965). ““The statutes (CL 1929, § 3406 [CL 1948, § 211.18 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.18)]) require every property owner to make a statement to the assessing officers.”
Interstate Steel Corp. v. City of Detroit, 229 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff did not file a sworn personal property tax assessment form as required by MCLA 211.18; MSA 7.18, nor did plaintiff appear before the board of review.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.18(2) — 1 case
Ford Motor Co. v. Bruce Twp., 689 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Usually, the assessor then relies on this personal property statement to assess the taxes. Under the tribunal's ruling, any mistake in inclusion of exempt property or doubly reported property would always be a unilateral mistake because the taxpayer acts alone in creating the…”
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.