PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD,
UNPUBLISHED
October 12, 2004
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 248083
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-289392
CITY OF DETROIT,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals as of right from a judgment issued by the small claims division of the
Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) denying petitioner’s claim for a property tax exemption. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining
whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v
Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). We will uphold the tribunal’s factual
findings if they are supported by “competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Id.
Petitioner claimed a tax exemption under MCL 211.7o(1). That statute provides an
exemption for property “owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution while occupied
by that nonprofit charitable institution solely for the purposes for which it was incorporated.”
MCL 211.7o(1). “Exemption does not follow from the mere fact of ownership by one of the
institutions named, but is based on and only applies to ownership combined with occupation for
the purposes of its incorporation.” Webb Academy v Grand Rapids, 209 Mich 523, 528; 177 NW
290 (1920). In this case, the taxed properties contained residential duplexes, and the properties
as a whole were used primarily to house the lay teachers employed by petitioner’s church-run
school. We have previously held that housing for lay ministers or teachers does not qualify for
the exemption now contained in MCL 211.7o. Michigan Christian Campus Ministries, Inc v Mt.
Pleasant, 110 Mich App 787, 795-796; 314 NW2d 482 (1981); St Matthew Lutheran Church v
Delhi Twp, 76 Mich App 597, 598-599; 257 NW2d 183 (1977). Therefore, the Tribunal
correctly held that the property was not exempt under the statute.
Petitioner also claimed a tax exemption under MCL 211.7s. That statute provides:
-1-
Houses of public worship, with the land on which they stand, the furniture
therein and all rights in the pews, and any parsonage owned by a religious society
of this state and occupied as a parsonage are exempt from taxation under this act.
Houses of public worship includes buildings or other facilities owned by a
religious society and used predominantly for religious services or for teaching the
religious truths and beliefs of the society.
The taxed properties did not contain houses of public worship, but were residential
housing units. Their primary purpose was to provide housing for lay school teachers, so this
statute does not provide the church with an exemption, either. St Matthew, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
