If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

TERRY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

,

Petitioner

- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 22, 2021

v No. 353797

Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 19

- 003979

- TT

Respondent

- Appellee.

Before: B ORRELLO

, P .J., and S ERVITTO and S TEPHENS , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Petitioner appeals as of right the f inal o pinion and j udgment of the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) upholding respondent ’ s denial of petitioner ’ s request for a principal residence exemption (PRE) for tax years 2018 and 2019. We affirm.

The material facts a re not in dispute. Alice Terry owned and occupied the subject property

, located at 102 Taylor Avenue in Roscommon County for many years. I n May 2013, Terry and her four children entered into the Family Limited Partnership Agreement of the Terry Family which

named Terry a s the only general partner, and her children as limited partners. In May 2017, Terry and her children executed a quitclaim d eed conveying their interests in the Taylor Avenue property

to the Terry Family Limited Partnership . Terry thereafter continued to occupy the property as her principal residence. In May 2019, respondent denied petitioner ’ s request for a PRE for tax years

2018 and 2019 because the record owner of the Taylor Avenue property was not an individual.

Petitioner appealed the denial to respondent, which held an informal conference and ultimately upheld the denial of the PRE. Petitioner subsequently appealed thi s matter in the Small Claims Division of the MTT, arguing that the p artnership a greement operated as a revocable trust

and that the property qualified for a PRE under MCL 211.7dd(a)( vi )

. The MTT determined that

the p artnership a greement did not establish a revocable trust, because the a greement stated that the parties desired to form a limited partnership governed by the Michigan Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The MTT thus concluded that petitioner was not entitled to a PRE for tax years

2018 an d 2019.- 2

-

On appeal, p etitioner argues that the MTT erred by concluding that it was not entitled to a PRE for tax years 2018 and 2019 under MCL 211.7dd(a)( vi ). We disagree.

Unless there is a claim of fraud, w e review MTT decisions to determine whether the MTT made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle. Stirling v Leelanau Co , ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2021) (Docket No. 353117); slip op at 2. Tax exemptions are narrowly

construed in favor of the t axing authority. Estate of Schubert v Dep ’ t of Treasury , 322 Mich App 439, 447

- 448; 912 NW2d 569 (2017). The person claiming a tax exemption bears the burden of proving he or she is entitled to the exemption. Id . at 448. “ When the Tribunal ’ s findings o f fact are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, those findings

are conclusive. ” Id . at 447. We review de novo the MTT ’ s interpretation and application of

statutes. ” Stirling , ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 2

.

Michigan ’ s PRE is governed by MCL 211.7cc and MCL 211.7dd. MCL 211.7cc(1) 1
provides, in relevant part: “ A principal residence is exempt from the tax levied by a local school district for school operating purposes

. . . if an owner of that principal resid ence claims an exemption as provided in this section. ” This Court has explained that a person claiming a PRE

must “ establish that he or she owned and occupied the property as a principal residence for each year that the exemption is claimed. ” Estate of S chubert , 322 Mich App at 451.

MCL 211.7dd provides, in relevant part:

As used in sections 7cc and 7ee:

(a) “ Owner ” means any of the following:

* * *

( vi ) A grantor who has placed the property in a revocable trust or a qualified personal residence t rust.

Petitioner argues that Terry granted the Taylor Avenue property to petitioner and that the

p artnership a greement operated as a revocable trust. However, even if the p artnership a greement operated as a revocable trus t, petitioner would not be an owner under MCL 211.7dd(a)( vi ). Petitioner does not dispute that Terry granted the Taylor Avenue property to petitioner in May

2017. It also does not argue that petitioner was the grantor under the plain language of MCL 211.7dd(a)( vi ). The MTT thus did not err by concluding that petitioner was not an owner under MCL 211.7dd(a)( vi ) and denying petitioner ’ s PRE claim for tax years 2018 and 2019.

In addition, petitioner has failed to provide any authority to support its argument that the

p artnership agreement met the requirements to create a trust

. “ An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims

,

. . . nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority. ”

1 MCL 211.7cc was amended, effective June 24, 2020, by 96 PA 2020. However, MCL 211.7cc(1)

was unaffected.- 3

-

Houghton ex rel Johnson v Keller , 256 Mich App 336, 339; 662 NW2d 854 (2003) (citations omitted)

. Nevertheless

, a trust is created only if the settlor “ indicates an intention to create the

trust. ” MCL 700.7402(1)(b). Petitioner cannot establish that Terry intended to create a trust

because the p artnership a greement stated that the parties wanted to form a limited partnership , not

a trust.

We affirm.

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens