Where the State Tax Commission classified two contiguous parcels of land as residential real for the 2022 tax year, that determination should be upheld despite the landowner’s contention that the primary use of the subject property for the 2022 tax year was agricultural and thus it should be reclassified as agricultural real.
“Janey Grier appeals by leave granted the order affirming the State Tax Commission’s (STC) determination that the subject property should be classified as residential real for the 2022 tax year. Judicial review of a property classification decision from the STC is limited to determining whether the STC’s decision was authorized by law, Const 1963, art 6, 28, and neither the circuit court nor this Court may review the evidentiary support for the STC’s property classification decision. CVS Caremark v State Tax Comm , 306 Mich App 58, 61-62; 856 NW2d 79 (2014). We find that the circuit court applied the correct standard of review and reached the proper conclusion. We affirm.
“According to Grier, there are approximately 63 acres of mature maple trees scattered across the subject property that are ‘suitable for maple sap harvesting’ and there are younger maple trees that will be suitable for maple sap harvesting at some time in the future. Grier maintains that there are 30 acres on the 0200 parcel that include ‘significant numbers of maple trees’ and ‘will also support rotational pasturing for cattle and swine.’
“Grier argues that she was denied due process and equal protection, the circuit court applied an improper standard of review, and the STC’s decision was not authorized by law because it was based upon an incorrect interpretation and misapplication of the statute. We disagree.
“Given our limited scope of review, we find that the STC’s determination that the subject property be classified as residential real for the 2022 tax year was authorized by law. Grier’s evidence of agricultural use focused on activities in 2022 (which is the 2023 tax year), not 2021 (which is the 2022 tax year). Grier failed to satisfy her burden to demonstrate that the property should be classified as agricultural for the 2022 tax year pursuant to MCL 211.34c(2)(a). The STC’s decision that there was not adequate evidence to support an agricultural classification of the subject property for the 2022 tax year followed the lawful procedure set forth in MCL 211.34c(6), was not in violation of a statute, and was within the STC’s authority and jurisdiction. We cannot say that the decision ‘lacks an adequate determining principle’ or that it ‘reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance,’ or that it is ‘freakish or whimsical,’ and thus the STC’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err when it found that ‘STC’s ultimate determination in which it classified the property as residential real was not improper and thus authorized by law.’
“However, we find that the circuit court erred when it found that ‘the STC determined that residential real most significantly influences the total valuation of the parcel[s]’ pursuant to MCL 211.34a(5). The record does not support that the STC made this specific finding. As Grier correctly argues, the STC’s classification determination summary does not mention MCL 211.34a(5). Nor did the board of review or assessor cite that statutory provision. The STC did not reference MCL 211.34a(5) until it filed its brief on appeal in the circuit court. Given the limited scope of judicial review of the STC’s classification decision, we find that the circuit court exceeded its scope of review and erroneously made a finding that is not supported by the administrative record. Nevertheless, the court’s erroneous finding on this issue is not dispositive. The STC’s ultimate determination that that the correct classification for the subject property for the 2022 tax year is residential real was authorized by law.”
Grier v. State Tax Comm'n; MiLW 08-108054, 11 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Maldonado, J., Patel, J., N. P. Hood, J.; on appeal from Tuscola Circuit Court; Janey Grier, pro se appellant; Thomas B. Golden for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0