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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u (2026)

Principal residence of persons in poverty; exemption from taxation; applicability of section to property of corporation; eligibility for exemption; application; policy and guidelines to be used by local assessing unit; duties of board of review; exemption by resolution and without application for certain tax years; appeal of property assessment; audit program; "principal residence" defined.

✓ 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


211.7u Principal residence of persons in poverty; exemption from taxation; applicability of section to property of corporation; eligibility for exemption; application; policy and guidelines to be used by local assessing unit; duties of board of review; exemption by resolution and without application for certain tax years; appeal of property assessment; audit program; "principal residence" defined.

Sec. 7u.

    (1) The principal residence of a person who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, is unable to contribute toward the public charges is eligible for exemption in whole or in part from the collection of taxes under this act. This section does not apply to the property of a corporation.

    (2) To be eligible for exemption under this section, a person shall, subject to subsections (6), (8), and (10), do all of the following on an annual basis:

    (a) Own and occupy as a principal residence the property for which an exemption is requested. The person shall affirm this ownership and occupancy status in writing by filing a form prescribed by the state tax commission with the local assessing unit.

    (b) File a claim with the board of review on a form prescribed by the state tax commission and provided by the local assessing unit, accompanied by federal and state income tax returns for all persons residing in the principal residence, including any property tax credit returns, filed in the immediately preceding year or in the current year. Federal and state income tax returns are not required for a person residing in the principal residence if that person was not required to file a federal or state income tax return in the tax year in which the exemption under this section is claimed or in the immediately preceding tax year. If a person was not required to file a federal or state income tax return in the tax year in which the exemption under this section is claimed or in the immediately preceding tax year, an affidavit in a form prescribed by the state tax commission may be accepted in place of the federal or state income tax return. The filing of a claim under this subsection constitutes an appearance before the board of review for the purpose of preserving the claimant's right to appeal the decision of the board of review regarding the claim.

    (c) Produce a valid driver license or other form of identification if requested by the supervisor or board of review.

    (d) Produce a deed, land contract, or other evidence of ownership of the property for which an exemption is requested if required by the supervisor or board of review.

    (e) Meet the federal poverty guidelines published in the prior calendar year in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under its authority to revise the poverty line under 42 USC 9902, or alternative guidelines adopted by the governing body of the local assessing unit provided the alternative guidelines do not provide income eligibility requirements less than the federal guidelines.

    (3) The application for an exemption under this section must be filed after January 1 but before the day prior to the last day of the board of review.

    (4) The governing body of the local assessing unit shall determine and make available to the public the policy and guidelines used for the granting of exemptions under this section. If the local assessing unit maintains a website, the local assessing unit shall make the policy and guidelines, and the form described in subsection (2)(b), available to the public on the website. The guidelines must include, but are not limited to, the specific income and asset levels of the claimant and total household income and assets.

    (5) The board of review shall follow the policy and guidelines of the local assessing unit in granting or denying an exemption under this section. If a person claiming an exemption under this section is qualified under the eligibility requirements in subsection (2), the board of review shall grant the exemption in whole or in part, as follows:

    (a) A full exemption equal to a 100% reduction in taxable value for the tax year in which the exemption is granted.

    (b) A partial exemption equal to 1 of the following:

    (i) A 75%, 50%, or 25% reduction in taxable value for the tax year in which the exemption is granted.

    (ii) As approved by the state tax commission, any other percentage reduction in taxable value for the tax year in which the exemption is granted, applied in a form and manner prescribed by the state tax commission.

    (6) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, a local assessing unit may permit by resolution a principal residence exempt from the collection of taxes under this section in tax year 2019 or 2020, or both, to remain exempt under this section in tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023 without subsequent reapplication for the exemption, provided there has not been a change in ownership or occupancy status of the person eligible for exemption under subsection (2), and may permit a principal residence exempt for the first time from the collection of taxes under this section in tax year 2021, 2022, or 2023 to remain exempt under this section for up to 3 additional years after its initial year of exempt status without subsequent reapplication for the exemption, provided there has not been a change in ownership or occupancy status of the person eligible for exemption under subsection (2), if the person who establishes initial eligibility under subsection (2) receives a fixed income solely from public assistance that is not subject to significant annual increases beyond the rate of inflation, such as federal Supplemental Security Income or Social Security disability or retirement benefits. Both of the following apply to a person who obtains an extended exemption under this subsection:

    (a) The person shall file with the local assessing unit, in a form and manner prescribed by the state tax commission, an affidavit rescinding the exemption as extended under this subsection within 45 days after either of the following, if applicable:

    (i) The person ceases to own or occupy the principal residence for which the exemption was extended.

    (ii) The person experiences a change in household assets or income that defeats eligibility for the exemption under subsection (2).

    (b) If the person fails to file a rescission as required under subdivision (a) and the property is later determined to be ineligible for the exemption under this section, the person is subject to repayment of any additional taxes with interest as described in this subdivision. Upon discovery that the property is no longer eligible for the exemption under this section, the assessor shall remove the exemption of that property and, if the tax roll is in the local tax collecting unit's possession, amend the tax roll to reflect the removal of the exemption, and the local treasurer shall, within 30 days of the date of the discovery, issue a corrected tax bill for any additional taxes with interest at the rate of 1% per month or fraction of a month computed from the date the taxes were last payable without interest. If the tax roll is in the county treasurer's possession, the tax roll must be amended to reflect the removal of the exemption and the county treasurer shall, within 30 days of the date of the removal, prepare and submit a supplemental tax bill for any additional taxes, together with interest at the rate of 1% per month or fraction of a month computed from the date the taxes were last payable without interest. Interest on any tax set forth in a corrected or supplemental tax bill again begins to accrue 60 days after the date the corrected or supplemental tax bill is issued at the rate of 1% per month or fraction of a month. Taxes levied in a corrected or supplemental tax bill must be returned as delinquent on the March 1 in the year immediately succeeding the year in which the corrected or supplemental tax bill is issued.

    (7) A person who files a claim under this section is not prohibited from also appealing the assessment on the property for which that claim is made before the board of review in the same year.

    (8) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, if the assessor determines that a principal residence of a person by reason of poverty is still eligible for the exemption under this section and the property was exempt from the collection of taxes under this section in tax year 2022, the property will remain exempt from the collection of taxes under this section through tax year 2023 if, on or before December 1, 2023, the governing body of the local assessing unit in which the principal residence is located adopts a resolution that continues the exemption through tax year 2023 for all principal residences within the local assessing unit that were exempt from the collection of taxes under this section in tax year 2022. The local assessing unit may require the owner of a principal residence exempt from the collection of taxes under this subsection to affirm ownership, poverty, and occupancy status in writing by filing with the local assessing unit the form prescribed by the state tax commission under subsection (2)(a).

    (9) A local assessing unit that adopts a resolution under subsection (6) or (8) must develop and implement an audit program that includes, but is not limited to, the audit of all information filed under subsection (2). If property is determined to be ineligible for exemption as a result of an audit, the person who filed for the exemption under subsection (2) is subject to repayment of additional taxes including interest to be paid as provided in subsection (6)(b). The state tax commission shall issue a bulletin providing further guidance to local assessing units on the development and implementation of an audit program under this subsection.

    (10) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, if an exemption was not on the assessment roll and was not denied, the July or December board of review shall grant an exemption under this section, in whole or in part as described in subsection (5), for the immediately preceding tax year on the principal residence of a person who establishes eligibility in that tax year under the criteria described in subsection (2). A claim of exemption under this subsection must be filed with the board of review on a form prescribed by the state tax commission and provided by the local assessing unit, accompanied by supporting documentation establishing eligibility for the exemption for the immediately preceding tax year and any additional supporting documentation as may be required by the state tax commission. The local assessing unit shall notify the department of treasury, in a form and manner prescribed by the department of treasury, of each exemption granted under this subsection by the board of review for the immediately preceding tax year.

    (11) As used in this section, "principal residence" means principal residence or qualified agricultural property as those terms are defined in section 7dd.

    

    

History: Add. 1980, Act 142, Imd. Eff. June 2, 1980 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 313, Eff. Mar. 15, 1994 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 390, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1994 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 620, Imd. Eff. Dec. 23, 2002 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 140, Eff. Jan. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 135, Imd. Eff. May 16, 2012 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 253, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2020 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 191, Imd. Eff. Nov. 7, 2023

PopularName Notes:

Act 206
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
Wayne a Smith v. Twp. of Forester, 913 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Given that ruling, the MTT found it "unnecessary to evaluate [petitioner's] eligibility under the asset test" but nonetheless concluded that there were not "substantial and compelling reasons to grant the exemption when considering both the income and the asset tests.”
Nicholson v. Birmingham Bd. of Review, 477 N.W.2d 492 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “[MCL 211.7u; MSA 7.7(4r).] Plaintiffs application for an exemption from her 1986 and 1987 property tax assessments was denied by the Birmingham Board of Review (Birmingham is a home rule city and the inclusion of its supervisor as a party is a misnomer).”
Ferrero v. Walton Twp., 813 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “520 should be counted as income for the purposes of her qualification for an exemption under MCL 211.7u for property taxes in 2009. Petitioner appeals as of right the decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) that the monies received should be treated as income for purposes of…”
20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 16× “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. * * * A hearing was held in the MTT before an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
Joseph a Baublis v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “Petitioner sought to avoid the payment of real property taxes pursuant to respondent’s poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u. Respondent denied petitioner’s application because it found that petitioner did not meet its definition for being impoverished.”
Karen J Bonzheim v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “The bulletin instructed that local units were required to adopt guidelines used to approve or deny a poverty exemption that included consideration of total household income as well as an asset test.”
Frank Nali v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. In tax year 2020, MCL 211.7u(1)1 provided, “The principal residence of persons who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the public…”
Zena Roumaya v. City of Sterling Heights (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “7u, which provides: (1) The principal residence of a person who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, is unable to contribute toward 1 The City challenged our jurisdiction over this appeal, alleging that Roumaya’s claim of appeal was…”
20241212_C369160_47_369160.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “[MCL 211.7u.] Pursuant to MCL 211.7u(2)(e), respondent enacted its own guidelines for granting poverty tax exemptions.”
Yusong Gong v. Twp. of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× ““The Tax Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s claim for a poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u following an unsuccessful request before the local board of review.”
Daniel Hallman v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “MCL 211.7u POVERTY TAX EXEMPTION Petitioners first argue that the Tribunal erred in not granting them a poverty exemption greater than 10% for the 2012 taxable year under MCL 211.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(1) — 6 cases
Joseph a Baublis v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Petitioner sought to avoid the payment of real property taxes pursuant to respondent’s poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u. Respondent denied petitioner’s application because it found that petitioner did not meet its definition for being impoverished.”
Karen J Bonzheim v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The bulletin instructed that local units were required to adopt guidelines used to approve or deny a poverty exemption that included consideration of total household income as well as an asset test.”
Frank Nali v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. In tax year 2020, MCL 211.7u(1)1 provided, “The principal residence of persons who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the public…”
20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. * * * A hearing was held in the MTT before an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
Mercedes Johnson v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(2) — 2 cases
Frank Nali v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. In tax year 2020, MCL 211.7u(1)1 provided, “The principal residence of persons who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the public…”
20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. * * * A hearing was held in the MTT before an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(2)(a) — 3 cases
Laura Selva v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Karen Spranger v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Daniel Hallman v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 211.7u POVERTY TAX EXEMPTION Petitioners first argue that the Tribunal erred in not granting them a poverty exemption greater than 10% for the 2012 taxable year under MCL 211.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(2)(b) — 6 cases
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
Yusong Gong v. Twp. of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). ““The Tax Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s claim for a poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u following an unsuccessful request before the local board of review.”
Mercedes Johnson v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Joseph a Baublis v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Petitioner sought to avoid the payment of real property taxes pursuant to respondent’s poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u. Respondent denied petitioner’s application because it found that petitioner did not meet its definition for being impoverished.”
Kofi Johnson v. Motor City Prop. Managers LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(2)(e) — 7 cases
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. * * * A hearing was held in the MTT before an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
Frank Nali v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. In tax year 2020, MCL 211.7u(1)1 provided, “The principal residence of persons who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the public…”
Zena Roumaya v. City of Sterling Heights (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “7u, which provides: (1) The principal residence of a person who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, is unable to contribute toward 1 The City challenged our jurisdiction over this appeal, alleging that Roumaya’s claim of appeal was…”
Joseph a Baublis v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Petitioner sought to avoid the payment of real property taxes pursuant to respondent’s poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u. Respondent denied petitioner’s application because it found that petitioner did not meet its definition for being impoverished.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(3) — 2 cases
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
Mercedes Johnson v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(4) — 7 cases
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
Karen J Bonzheim v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The bulletin instructed that local units were required to adopt guidelines used to approve or deny a poverty exemption that included consideration of total household income as well as an asset test.”
Yusong Gong v. Twp. of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). ““The Tax Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s claim for a poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u following an unsuccessful request before the local board of review.”
20241213_C368390_29_368390.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. * * * A hearing was held in the MTT before an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
Joseph a Baublis v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Petitioner sought to avoid the payment of real property taxes pursuant to respondent’s poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u. Respondent denied petitioner’s application because it found that petitioner did not meet its definition for being impoverished.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(5) — 7 cases
Spranger v. City of Warren, 865 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, on the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.…”
Frank Nali v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Nali contended that he was entitled to a 100% exemption under MCL 211.7u. In tax year 2020, MCL 211.7u(1)1 provided, “The principal residence of persons who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the public…”
Zena Roumaya v. City of Sterling Heights (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “7u, which provides: (1) The principal residence of a person who, in the judgment of the supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, is unable to contribute toward 1 The City challenged our jurisdiction over this appeal, alleging that Roumaya’s claim of appeal was…”
20241212_C369160_47_369160.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 211.7u.] Pursuant to MCL 211.7u(2)(e), respondent enacted its own guidelines for granting poverty tax exemptions.”
Daniel Hallman v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 211.7u POVERTY TAX EXEMPTION Petitioners first argue that the Tribunal erred in not granting them a poverty exemption greater than 10% for the 2012 taxable year under MCL 211.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(7) — 1 case
Karen Spranger v. City of Warren (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.7u(9) — 1 case
Karen J Bonzheim v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The bulletin instructed that local units were required to adopt guidelines used to approve or deny a poverty exemption that included consideration of total household income as well as an asset test.”
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.