Listen to this article
Where the Michigan Tax Tribunal dismissed a petitioner’s challenge to the 2024 tax assessment of his home, the tribunal’s dismissal constituted an error of law.
Vacated and remanded.
“In this property tax action, petitioner, an attorney proceeding in propria persona, appeals as of right the Michigan Tax Tribunal, Small Claims Division’s order dismissing his petition challenging respondent’s 2024 assessment of true cash value (TCV) and taxable value (TV) for his residential property (22303 Beech) located in the City of Dearborn. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
“We hold that the tribunal made an error of law when it dismissed petitioner’s challenge to the subject property’s 2024 tax assessment.
“Here, the tribunal declined to make an independent determination of TCV, reasoning that petitioner failed to meet the burden of going forward with the evidence because his ‘sole valuation argument [was] to rebut Respondent’s evidence and to value the subject property in comparison to the [state equalized values (SEVs)] of Respondent’s comparables,’ and a ‘mere comparison of assessed values disregards the numerous factors considered for each individual assessment.’ But, although minimal and identical to respondent’s evidence, petitioner did produce evidence on valuation in the form of tax assessments for two comparable properties, and the tribunal did not cite to any law (nor have we located any) specifically concluding that a petitioner fails to meet its burden of going forward for purposes of establishing a property’s appropriate TCV by relying on the same evidence as the respondent in support of its decision.
“Further, in dismissing the petition, the tribunal reasoned in part that the comparison evidence presented by respondent and relied upon by petitioner was neither sufficient nor competent, and did not meet the burden of going forward with the evidence, because ‘[v]arious steps go into constructing each assessment, and mere comparison of assessed values disregards the numerous factors considered for each individual assessment.’ But, petitioner’s failure to convince the tribunal that the comparison evidence adequately supported his assessment arguments concerns the reliability and weight of that evidence, and therefore the failure to persuade, rather than the failure to go forward with the evidence. … Accordingly, the tribunal’s dismissal constituted an error of law.
“Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
