BROADCASTING PARTNERS INC V CITY OF OAK PARK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
April 18, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
Michigan Tax Tribunal
No. 181517
LC No. 204449
CITY OF OAK PARK,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and G.S. Buth*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals by leave granted from an order of the tax tribunal denying its motion for
summary disposition. We reverse.
Petitioner is the owner of radio station equipment situated in Oak Park, Michigan. In 1991 and
1992, petitioner failed to file a statement of personal property with respondent as required by the
general property tax act, MCL 211.18; MSA 7.18. Petitioner subsequently claimed that this property
was over-assessed in 1991 and 1992, and attempted to correct the assessment by submitting STC
Form L-4155 to the State Tax Commission (STC). The STC rejected petitioner’s submission on the
ground that 1984 AACS, R 209.73 states that a taxpayer may not submit an STC Form L-4155 unless
the taxpayer previously filed a timely personal property statement. Petitioner appealed the STC’s
decision to the tax tribunal. Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10) was denied by the tribunal. This Court granted respondent’s application for leave to
appeal.
Respondent contends that petitioner was not entitled to seek relief pursuant to MCL 211.154;
MSA 7.211 on its claim that its personal property had been over-assessed. A taxpayer may seek relief
pursuant to MCL 211.154(1); MSA 7.211(1) where its “property liable to taxation has been
incorrectly reported or omitted” from the tax rolls, such as where the taxable status of an item of
property has been incorrectly recorded. This is distinct from the situation in which a taxpayer’s
property has been incorrectly assessed, which is addressed by MCL 211.30; MSA 7.30. See City of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Detroit v Norman Allan & Co, 107 Mich App 186; 309 NW2d 198 (1981). Thus, we conclude that
MCL 211.154; MSA 7.211 addresses the situation where the status of property, i.e. taxable or
exempt, as opposed to its value, is in dispute. A taxpayer may appeal a taxing authority’s determination
of value initially to the board of review pursuant to MCL 211.30; MSA 7.30, followed by review in the
tax tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.735; MSA 7.650(35). Accordingly, we conclude that the tribunal
erred in denying respondent’s motion for summary disposition.
In light of our conclusion, we need not address the merits of petitioner’s remaining arguments.
Reversed and remanded for entry of order granting respondent’s motion for summary
disposition.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ George S. Buth
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
