JOSEPH KASBERG V YPSILANTI TWP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH KASBERG,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 16, 2010
9:15 a.m.
Petitioner-Appellant,
and
NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES OF WIN
YPSILANTI,
Appellant,
v
No. 287682
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-338289
YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Bandstra and Murray, JJ.
BANDSTRA, J.
Appellants, the National Church Residences of Win Ypsilanti (National), a non-profit
housing concern, and one of its officers, Joseph Kasberg, appeal by right the Tax Tribunal’s
August 29, 2008, order dismissing an appeal of appellee Ypsilanti Township’s tax assessment of
certain real property. Appellants assert that appellee wrongfully determined the property was not
exempt from taxation under MCL 125.1415a. The hearing officer granted appellee’s motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) on the ground that the tribunal lacked
jurisdiction because the claimed exemption is a creature of the state’s police power under the
State Housing Development Authority Act, MCL 125.1401 et seq., not of the General Property
Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. We reverse.
Appellants filed this appeal with the Tax Tribunal arguing appellee wrongfully denied a
property tax exemption known as a “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) pursuant to the State
Housing Development Authority (SHDA) Act. MCL 125.1415a.1 Appellants assert that
1
“If a housing project owned by a nonprofit housing corporation, consumer housing
cooperative, limited dividend housing corporation, mobile home park corporation, or
(continued…)
-1-
National is “a non-profit charitable corporation, which makes it PILOT eligible.” Appellee
moved the Tax Tribunal for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) on the ground
that it lacked jurisdiction and asserting that the PILOT exemption is a creature of the state’s
police power, not of the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. The hearing officer
agreed with appellee, so he granted summary disposition and dismissed the case.
Whether the Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction2 is a question of law that we review de novo.
W A Foote Mem Hosp v Dep’t of Pub Health, 210 Mich App 516, 522; 534 NW2d 206 (1995).
We note that a court must be vigilant in respecting the limits of its jurisdiction. Fox v Univ of
Michigan Bd of Regents, 375 Mich 238, 242; 134 NW2d 146 (1965). This is because any actions
of a court regarding a matter over which it lacks jurisdiction are void. Id.
The Legislature has granted the Tax Tribunal “exclusive and original jurisdiction” over
certain proceedings, including the following:
(a) A proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling,
determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates,
special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of
this state.
(b) A proceeding for a refund or redetermination of a tax levied under the
property tax laws of this state. [MCL 205.731; Emphases added.]
In other words, the MTT has “exclusive and original jurisdiction” over any “proceeding for
direct review of a final decision . . . relating to assessment . . . under the property tax laws of this
state.” MCL 205.731(a). Obviously, this case involves an assessment imposed under the
property tax laws of Michigan and, applying the straightforward statutory language, the tax
tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction.
(…continued)
mobile home park association is financed with a federally-aided or authority-aided
mortgage or advance or grant from the authority, then, except as provided in this section,
the housing project is exempt from all ad valorem property taxes imposed by this state or
by any political subdivision, public body, or taxing district in which the project is located.
The owner of a housing project eligible for the exemption shall file with the local
assessing officer a notification of the exemption, which shall be in an affidavit form as
provided by the authority. The completed affidavit form first shall be submitted to the
[SHDA] for certification by the [SHDA] that the project is eligible for the exemption.
The owner then shall file the certified notification of the exemption with the local
assessing officer before November 1 of the year preceding the tax year in which the
exemption is to begin.” [MCL 125.1415a(1).]
2
This is the only issue before us. We note that much of our dissenting colleague’s discussion
has to do with the merits of appellant’s arguments, not with the jurisdiction of the MTT to review
the appeal. We express no opinion whether appellants were entitled to and should have been
granted certification of exemption from taxation under the PILOT program by SHDA nor the
merits of appellants’ MTT appeal in light of the absence of such PILOT certification.
-2-
Arguing otherwise, appellee relies on dictum from Wikman v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617;
322 NW2d 103 (1982), as well as Beattie v East China Twp, 157 Mich App 27; 403 NW2d 490
(1987). Wikman actually determined that the MTT had jurisdiction over the matter at issue,
special assessments imposed for a road paving project in the city of Novi. Wikman, 413 Mich at
626, 630-631. The Court reasoned that, because the city was granted power and authority to levy
the special assessments by the Legislature through the property tax laws, the Tax Tribunal had
jurisdiction to review them. Id. at 636. The dispositive question under Wikman is whether the
assessment at issue here was imposed “under the property tax laws” in the sense that appellee’s
power to impose the tax was granted by the property tax laws. That is clearly the case, and,
therefore, the MTT has jurisdiction.
Further, we note that the Wikman Court drew a contrast between the case before it and
those involving “special assessments [that] are clearly not related to property taxes” like
assessments “exacted through the state’s police power as part of the government’s efforts to
protect society’s health and welfare” or “special assessments . . . collected in connection with a
regulatory program to defray the cost of such regulation.” Id. at 635. The assessment at issue
here was imposed under the property tax laws, not some other authority; it is not within the
category of cases declared to be outside of the jurisdictional rule established by Wikman.
While noting that Beattie is not binding upon us, MCR 7.215(J), appellee nonetheless
argues that its reasoning is persuasive. Appellee reads Beattie as meaning that, even though a tax
assessment has been imposed under the authority of the property tax laws, the MTT is divested
of jurisdiction if the propriety of that imposition depends on the availability of an exemption
created by some other law, like the State Housing Development Authority Act here.
As appellants point out, however, this Beattie reasoning cannot trump either Wikman or
the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. The statute does not limit the MTT’s
jurisdiction to cases where provisions of the property tax laws are to be exclusively or primarily
interpreted. Instead, as Wikman concluded, the MTT has exclusive and original jurisdiction as to
the imposition of taxes by agencies operating under the authority of the property tax laws. There
is no “except” clause for cases where other laws might limit that authority or exempt taxpayers
from tax liability. See In re Petition for Foreclosure, 286 Mich App 108, 111; ___ NW2d ___
(2009) (“The Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction under MCL 205.731(a) to determine whether a
taxpayer is entitled to a property tax exemption because the determination relates to an
assessment.”); MCL 205.735a(3) (MTT has jurisdiction regarding the “exemption of property”
from an assessment so long as a protest has been filed before the Board of Review.) As this
panel has recently noted, the MTT has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to decide all sorts of
statutory and constitutional questions that might impact the propriety of taxation imposed under
the authority of the property tax laws. Michigan’s Adventure, Inc v Dalton Twp, ___ Mich App
____; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 287682, issued January 14, 2010).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings in the MTT. No costs should be taxed, a
public question being at issue. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-3-
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.
