Opinion ID: 1761250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: hearing on the personal property assessment.

Text: After appeal to the State tax commission of taxpayer's 1965 personal property assessment, the commission caused an investigation, including an audit and appraisal, to be made of appellant's property. Copy was made available to appellant. There is no specific identification in this record of the investigation. A fieldman's report with attachments appears to supply the results of the investigation and audit and contains an appraisal based upon three separate estimates. The summations are as follows: a. Appraisal based principally on audit of furniture and fixture account in firm's general ledger. Total estimated value this approach  $424,980. b. Appraisal based principally on a study of hotel operations by a public accounting and auditing firm using book values before depreciation. Total estimated value this approach  $497,055. c. Appraisal based principally on a study of hotel operations by a public accounting and auditing firm using book values after depreciation. Total estimated value this approach  $520,335. A hearing was held by the commission in Grand Rapids on November 4, 1965. Taxpayer made no attempt to cross-examine the member or members of the commission staff, whoever they might be, concerning the contents of the fieldman's report or the nature and extent of the investigation and audit. The only witnesses called were two of the Roberts brothers and the city assessor. J.W. Roberts, president and general manager of the Pantlind Hotel Company, testified as to his opinion of the true cash value of the personal property. He assigned a value as of December 31, 1964, of $160,500. Charles Roberts, vice-president of the Pantlind Hotel Company, undertook to explain and compare the figures furnished to the commission with those supplied to the Grand Rapids board of review. The testimony of Clarence M. Thielman, city assessor of Grand Rapids, need not be reviewed except to note that he testified he completely disregarded the allocation by taxpayer on its books of the sum of $94,000 to cover personal property. This was an application of wrong principles which, had it been followed by the State tax commission, would have been clearly erroneous. The taxpayer was entitled to have its contentions considered by the assessor even though he ultimately rejected them. On December 14, 1965, the commission's decision and order were entered, directing that the assessment in the amount of $148,500 [$148,600] be placed upon the assessment roll as the true and lawful value for taxation purposes of the taxpayer's personal property.