Case Name: AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1981-01-06
Citations: 102 Mich. App. 679
Docket Number: Docket No. 47642
Parties: AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v CITY OF DETROIT
Judges: Before: Bronson, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., and R. M. Ransom, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 102
Pages: 679–682

Head Matter:
AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v CITY OF DETROIT
Docket No. 47642.
Submitted October 14, 1980, at Detroit.
Decided January 6, 1981.
American Title Insurance Company, a foreign insurance company, pays a monthly fee to the County of Wayne for the nonexclusive use of certain office space located in the City-County Building in the City of Detroit. In 1978, the City of Detroit assessed that property pursuant to a statutory provision permitting property tax assessments against businesses conducted for profit which lease or otherwise use property which is exempt from taxation. American Title petitioned the Michigan Tax Tribunal, arguing that such an assessment on the office space in the City-County Building was improper by reason of a provision in the Insurance Code which.provides for a specific tax on the premiums of foreign insurance companies in lieu of all other taxes except for real estate taxes on property owned by the insurance company within the state. The City of Detroit argued that the General Property Tax Act provision controlled and the assessment for taxation of that office space was proper. The hearing referee affirmed the assessment. Upon review by the Tax Tribunal, the referee’s decision was vacated and the assessment was declared to be void. The City of Detroit appeals as of right. Held:
Since the purpose of the General Property Tax Act provision providing for the imposition of a tax equal to the property tax payable if the tax exempt property was owned by a business conducted for profit was to eliminate any unfair advantage by such business over its competition, and since under these circumstances no such unfair advantage exists, the legislative intent expressed in both statutes is satisfied by holding that the specific tax of the Insurance Code controls. The order of the Tax Tribunal vacating the assessment, accordingly, was proper.
Affirmed.
References for Points in Headnote
[1] 43 Am Jur 2d, Insurance § 83.
71 Am Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation §§ 336 et seq., 353.
Taxation — Insurance — Foreign Insurance Companies — Leased Property — Tax Exempt Property — Nonexclusive Use — Statutes.
A foreign insurance company subject to the statutory tax based upon a percentage of the premiums collected in Michigan is not subject to a statutory provision requiring payment by a business conducted for profit of a tax equal to the property tax on tax exempt property leased or used by such business where the insurance company pays to a governmental unit a fee for the nonexclusive use of an area in a building which is tax exempt by reason of the ownership of the property by the governmental unit (MCL 211.181[1], 500.440; MSA 7.7[5][1], 24.1440).
Everett L. Wittmer, for plaintiff.
George W. Crockett, Jr., Acting Corporation Counsel, and Carl Rashid, Jr., Assistant Corporation Counsel, for defendant.
Before: Bronson, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., and R. M. Ransom, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
Petitioner, American Title Insurance Company, pays $2,662 monthly for the nonexclusive use of an office in the City-County Building. The City of Detroit appeals as of right from the decision by the Michigan Tax Tribunal that the petitioner's use of the office is not subject to taxation. The city contends that MCL 211.181(1); MSA 7.7(5)(1) controls:
"When any real property which for any reason is exempt from taxation is leased, loaned, or otherwise made available to and used by a private individual, association or corporation in connection with the business conducted for profit, the lessees or users thereof shall be subject to taxation in the same amount and to the same extent as though the lessee or user were the owner of such property."
United States v Detroit, 345 Mich 601; 77 NW2d 79 (1956), states that the legislative intent of the above statute was to put businesses owning or leasing private property on an equal footing with users of tax exempt government property by eliminating any element of unfair competition between them by requiring an equal tax burden on both.
Petitioner relies on MCL 500.440; MSA 24.1440, which provides that foreign insurance companies must pay a tax equal to two percent of the premiums collected in this state. In pertinent part the statute provides:
"These specific taxes shall be in lieu of all other taxation, whether state or local, excepting for real estate owned by insurers within the state."
The petitioner does not own the property at issue. The words "owned by" have a clear and definite meaning, i.e., denoting an absolute and unqualified title. Goodwin, Inc v Orson E Coe Pontiac, Inc, 43 Mich App 640, 645; 204 NW2d 749 (1972). The petitioner does not have an absolute and unqualified title to the subject property. It has a nonexclusive use, and the title is vested in a governmental entity.
The statutes relied upon by the respective parties initially appear to be in direct conflict in pari materia. One statute creates a specific tax in lieu of all other taxes except taxes on the ownership of real property. The other statute provides that lessees or users of property shall be subject to taxation as though they were the owner.
In interpreting statutes which cover the same general material, a fundamental rule is that they must be construed together to give meaning to both, if at all possible. Council No 23, Local 1905, AFSCME v Recorder's Court Judges, 399 Mich 1, 10; 248 NW2d 220 (1976). Holding that the Insurance Code provision controls is consistent with the legislative intent of both statutes. In the instant case, petitioner does not possess an unfair advantage over its competition. It pays $31,944 annually for the use of an area which is also utilized by employees of other title insurance underwriters. Petitioner does not escape taxation, as it is required to pay a tax of two percent on all premiums, subject to certain deductions. We agree with the Tax Tribunal that petitioner is exempt from taxation on the subject property.
Affirmed.