Case Name: In re FISHER-NEW CENTER COMPANY. CITY OF DETROIT v. STATE TAX COMMISSION
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1965-05-11
Citations: 375 Mich. 559
Docket Number: Calendar No. 65, Docket No. 50,802
Parties: In re FISHER-NEW CENTER COMPANY. CITY OF DETROIT v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
Judges: T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Black, Souris, Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 375
Pages: 559–565

Head Matter:
In re FISHER-NEW CENTER COMPANY. CITY OF DETROIT v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
Decision of the Court.
1. Taxation — Assessment—State Tax Commission — Remand.
State tax commission’s order assessing intervenor’s property is ordered vacated and commission’s record remanded to it for new determination after according local taxing unit due process and applying a uniform rule for ad valorem tax purposes.
Dissenting Opinion.
Dethmers, Kelly, and O’Hara, JJ.
2. Taxation — State Tax Commission — Denial of Access to Records — Burden of Proof — Administrative Due Process.
The appellant from the Slate tax commission has the burden of making clear just what records were refused it by the commission and to preserve properly the claimed resulting denial of administrative due process by the refusal (CL 1948, §¡¡09.105).
3. Same — State Tax Commission — Denial of Access to Records— Burden of Proof — Evidence.
Record on appeal from State tax commission failed to show that appellant city had sustained its burden of showing that to which it had been denied access in the records of the commission, and that appellant city had impliedly, if not expressly, waived such denial as a ground for appeal (CL 1948, § 209-.105).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 51 Am Jur, Taxation §§ 741, 742.
[2, 3, 5] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 767 et se$.
[4] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 155.
[6] 14 Am Jur, Costs § 106.
4. Same — Ad Valorem Property Tax — Uniformity—Recent Sale —Assessment.
The application of the rule of uniformity in the ad valorem taxation of property does not prevent the State tax commission from considering a recent bona-fide sale as a factor in determining taxable value (Const 1908, art 10, §8).
5. Same — State Tax Commission — Denial of Access to Assessment Records — Prejudice.
A technical violation, if any, of State tax commission’s obligation to malee available its assessment records for inspection at reasonable time by appellant city, would not constitute prejudicial or reversible error, where the result reached as to the assessment of intervening owner’s property is unassailable (CL 1948, § 209.105).
6. Costs' — Appeal prom State Tax Commission — Assessment of Property.
No costs are allowed on city’s appeal from State tax commission upon affirmance of order as to assessment of property of intervening owner, no reversible error having been disclosed.
Appeal from State Tax Commission.
Submitted March 3, 1965.
(Calendar No. 65, Docket No. 50,802.)
Decided May 11, 1965.
Appeal in the nature of certiorari by City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, from an order of the Michigan State Tax Commission reducing assessment on 29 parcels of real property of Fisher-New Center Company, a Michigan corporation.
Order vacated and record remanded for further proceedings.
Robert Reese, Corporation Counsel, JohnH. Witherspoon and Julius C. Plislcow, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellant city.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, T. Carl Holbrook and William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State Tax Commission.
David M. Miro and Honigman, Miller, Schwarts & Cohn (Jason L. Honigman and John Sklar, of counsel), for intervening appellee Fisher-New Center Company.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order of appellee Michigan State tax commission dated January 6, 1964, is vacated. The commission's record is remanded for further hearing and new determination of the taxpayer's appeal in the light of Pavilion Apartments, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 373 Mich 601, and Titus v. State Tax Commission, 374 Mich 476.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Black, Souris, Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred.