Case Name: KASBERG v. YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2010-03-16
Citations: 287 Mich. App. 563
Docket Number: Docket No. 287682
Parties: KASBERG v YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP
Judges: Before: MARKEY, P.J., and BANDSTRA and MURRAY, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 287
Pages: 563–575

Head Matter:
KASBERG v YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP
Docket No. 287682.
Submitted December 2, 2009, at Grand Rapids.
Decided March 16, 2010, at 9:15 a.m.
Joseph Kasberg, an officer of National Church Residences of Win Ypsilanti, MI (National), a nonprofit housing concern, and National brought an appeal in the Michigan Tax Tribunal, alleging that Ypsilanti Township wrongfully denied a properly tax exemption known as a “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) pursuant to the State Housing Development Authority (SHDA) Act. MCL 125.1415a. The Tax Tribunal granted summaiy disposition in favor of the township and dismissed the case on the ground that the Tax Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter 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 the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. Kasberg and National appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. The Tax Tribunal 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. The case involves an assessment imposed under the property tax laws of Michigan. The assessment at issue was imposed under the property tax laws in the sense that the township’s power to impose the tax was granted by the property tax laws. The Tax Tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction.
2. The Tax Tribunal 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. The Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction under MCL 205.731(a) and (b) is not limited to cases where provisions of the property tax laws are to be exclusively or primarily interpreted. The order of the Tax Tribunal must be reversed and the case must be remanded to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Markey, EJ., dissenting, stated that because the appellants’ sole basis for relief was a claim to an exemption that did not arise under the property tax laws of this state the order of the Tax Tribunal should be affirmed. The Tax Tribunal could not grant an exemption that the Legislature has entrusted to the SADA to grant. The Tax Tribunal does not have the authority to grant Kasberg a PILOT exemption that has not been certified for Kasberg by the SHDA. In addition, the Tax Tribunal may not ignore the appellants’ failure to comply with the statutory requirement that a certificate of exemption be filed 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(l). The Tax Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the underlying claim to an exemption under a nontax statute. A matter that does not arise under the property tax laws of this state cannot be within the jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal under MCL 205.731(a) and (b). The present claim to an exemption under MCL 125.1415a stems from the state’s police powers, not its property tax laws.
Taxation — Tax Tribunal — Jurisdiction.
The Tax Tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction over any proceeding for the direct review of a final decision relating to an assessment under the property tax laws of this state; such jurisdiction is not limited to cases where provisions of the property tax laws are to be exclusively or primarily interpreted; the Tax Tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction as to the imposition of taxes by agencies operating under the authority of the property tax laws, including cases where other laws might limit that authority or exempt taxpayers from tax liability (MCL 205.731[a] and [b]).
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by Michael B. Shapiro and Daniel L. Stanley) for Joseph Kasberg and National Church Residences of Win Ypsilanti, MI.
McLain & Winters (by Wm. Douglas Winters and Angela B. King) for Ypsilanti Township.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and BANDSTRA and MURRAY, JJ.

Opinion:
BANDSTRA, J.
Appellants, the National Church Residences of Win Ypsilanti, MI (National), a nonprofit housing concern, and one of its officers, Joseph Kas berg, appeal as of right the August 29, 2008, order of the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) 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 MTT 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 MTT, 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. Appellants assert that National is "a non-profit charitable corporation, which makes it PILOT eligible." Appellee moved in the MTT for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) on the ground that the MTT 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 MTT has jurisdiction 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 Mich 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 MTT "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(a) and (b) (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 MTT has exclusive and original jurisdiction.
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 Charter 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 MTT 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 contrasted 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 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 SHDA Act here.
As appellants point out, however, this Beattie reasoning cannot prevail over 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 of Wayne Co Treasurer for Foreclosure, 286 Mich App 108, 111; 777 NW2d 108 (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) (The MTT has jurisdiction regarding the "exemption of property" from an assessment as 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, 287 Mich App 151; 782 NW2d 806 (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.
MURRAY, J., concurred.
If a housing project owned hy a nonprofit housing corporation, consumer housing cooperative, limited dividend housing corporation, mobile home park corporation, or 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(l).]
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.