H&H TUBING V CITY OF TROY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
H & H TUBING, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 192402
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00163073
CITY OF TROY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and MJ Kelly and Young, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a Michigan Tax Tribunal order dismissing its claim for a refund
of personal property taxes paid to defendant. We affirm.
Plaintiff corporation disputed defendant city’s assessment of plaintiff’s property for the 1991 tax
year. Plaintiff contented that some of its assets had been moved to another jurisdiction and thus should
not have been included in the assessment by the City of Troy. Defendant’s board of review denied
plaintiff’s claim, and plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Tax Tribunal. At a prehearing conference before
the tax tribunal, the parties stipulated that the value of plaintiff’s property in defendant city at the end of
the 1991 tax year was $153,134. They also stipulated that plaintiff would provide proof that $378,000
of additional assets had been moved to, and assessed by, another jurisdiction in that tax year. The
parties agreed that, upon receipt of such proofs, defendant would stipulate to an appropriate refund to
plaintiff.
Plaintiff submitted numerous pages of financial information, but defendant refused to sign a
stipulation, claiming that plaintiff had failed to show that any transferred assets had been assessed by
another taxing authority. Defendant brought a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim, and the tax tribunal
granted the motion. Plaintiff then brought this appeal, arguing that dismissal was improper because it
had submitted evidence as required by the prehearing conference agreement. We disagree.
MCL 205.737(3); MSA 7.650(37)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he petitioner has the
burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property” in dispute. Plaintiff submitted
-1
inventory lists, worksheets, summaries of tax return filings, and a notice of change of assessment by
another taxing jurisdiction. This evidence, however, did not establish that assets transferred by plaintiff
out of defendant’s jurisdiction were in fact taxed in the other jurisdiction. Consequently, defendant’s
obligation to stipulate to a refund under the terms of the prehearing conference agreement was never
triggered. Plaintiff’s claim thus fails.
Plaintiff also contends that it will be prejudiced if it is bound by the stipulated valuation from the
prehearing conference. Plaintiff argues that it should be allowed to contest defendant’s 1991 valuation
of plaintiff’s property because defendant breached its obligation to stipulate to a refund under the
agreement. However, as set forth above, plaintiff failed to submit the required materials, and, thus,
defendant’s obligation to stipulate to a refund was not triggered. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument is
without merit.
Affirmed. Defendant being the prevailing party, it may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-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.
