THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ACT
Act 206 of 1893
211.7m Property owned or being acquired by county, township, city, village, school district, or political subdivision; parks.
Sec. 7m.
Property owned by, or being acquired pursuant to, an installment purchase agreement by a county, township, city, village, or school district used for public purposes and property owned or being acquired by an agency, authority, instrumentality, nonprofit corporation, commission, or other separate legal entity comprised solely of, or which is wholly owned by, or whose members consist solely of a political subdivision, a combination of political subdivisions, or a combination of political subdivisions and the state and is used to carry out a public purpose itself or on behalf of a political subdivision or a combination is exempt from taxation under this act. Parks shall be open to the public generally. This exemption shall not apply to property acquired after July 19, 1966, unless a deed or other memorandum of conveyance is recorded in the county where the property is located before December 31 of the year of acquisition, or the local assessing officer is notified by registered mail of the acquisition before December 31 of the year of acquisition.
History: Add. 1980, Act 142, Imd. Eff. June 2, 1980
PopularName Notes:
Act 206
Notes of Decisions
City of Mt Pleasant v. State Tax Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 833 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 8× “We granted leave to appeal in this case to determine whether MCL 211.7m exempts property from taxation on the basis that it is “used for public purposes” when a city acquires property and implements a plan to use the property for economic development purposes.”
City of Kalamazoo v. Richland Twp., 562 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “On April 10, 1992, Kalamazoo appealed to the mtt, arguing that Eastern Hills was tax-exempt under MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j), which exempts a local government’s property from taxation.”
Golf Concepts v. City of Rochester Hills, 550 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “2 MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j). Respondent nonetheless determined that the value of the land was taxable to petitioner under the lessee-user tax act, MCL 211.”
Balogh v. City of Flat Rock, 394 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “It argues that the state’s construction of the statute indicates the city may be claiming an exemption to which it is not entitled, but does not justify invalidating the ordinance.”
Wayne Cnty. v. City of Detroit, 590 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“Section 7m of the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j), establishes an exemption from taxation for “[Property owned by, or being acquired pursuant to, an installment purchase agreement by a county .”
Mun. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Delta Charter Twp., 702 N.W.2d 665 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Petitioner challenged the valuation and claimed that the parcels were exempt from ad valorem taxation pursuant to MCL 211.7m because the parcels were being “used to carry out a public purpose” in that they were part of a diversified portfolio that benefited public employees.”
City of Mt Pleasant v. State Tax Comm'n, 703 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Petitioner argued that the properties were exempt from taxation pursuant to the provisions of MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j). Petitioner appealed to the local Board of Review, which affirmed the assessor’s decision.”
Am. GOLF v. City of Huntington Woods, 570 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“Consistent with MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j), respondent treated Rackham as exempt from real property taxation through 1992 because it was owned by a city and used to carry out a public purpose.”
Bodeco LLC v. City of Traverse City (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 12× “In July 2020, petitioner applied for a property tax exemption under MCL 211.7m. The application was denied in a letter from respondent dated September 16, 2020, that did not include an explanation for the denial beyond stating that the property “does not qualify under MCL 211.”
City of Mt. Pleasant v. State Tax Comm'n, 708 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 2× “7m exempts property from taxation on the basis that it is "used for public purposes" within the meaning of *111 that statutory provision when the property is owned by a city after having been acquired to allow the area to be annexed to that city and is being assembled and…”
Mun. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Charter Tp. of Delta, 731 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 8× “We further note that if the Municipal Employees Retirement Systems of Michigan is unable to meet pension disbursements, municipalities themselves must produce these funds.”
City of Mt. Pleasant v. STATE TAX COM'N, 703 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Petitioner argued that the properties were exempt from taxation pursuant to the provisions of MCL 211.7m; MSA 7.7(4j). Petitioner appealed to the local Board of Review, which affirmed the assessor's decision.”
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.