Opinion ID: 1761035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As I recall, this is true.

Text: Mr. Honigman: That is all. Witness George Turner, when asked to give his opinion as to the average level of property assessments in Detroit, answered that in the downtown area the newer buildings were assessed at close to 50%. Henry Thomas confirmed his understanding of the 50% level of assessments in Detroit when he explained his percentage of allowance for city taxes: The 2.6 was in a comparative analysis situation that the assessment may average 50% in the city of Detroit  the rate was $52 roughly  Q. (Interposing): Per thousand of assessed value. A. (Continuing):  and that in a combined way would be the taxes under a rate of $52 under a basis of a 50% assessment. Q. In other words, you recognize in evaluating the tax liability on the property that the tax will be assessed at $52 to $53 per thousand based on the assessed value which is approximately 50% of true cash value, is that right? (Emphasis supplied.) A. That's correct. Mr. Honigman: That's all. It is clear from the record before us that the taxpayer was not taken by surprise as to the assessment level which the tax commission might find to be in effect in Detroit. Instead of attempting to impeach the 50% level assumed in the commission staff report and as indicated by these witnesses, the taxpayer elected to offer competing evidence of a lower assessment level. If the commission elected to accept such competing evidence, it might do so. However, there being some evidence to support the determination of the commission, and the valuation of the taxpayer's property having been reduced to 50% in accordance with such determination, the taxpayer is not in a position to complain. The better practice upon this appeal would have been to include the studies of the commission as a part of the record for consideration by this Court. If, because of their bulk, this was not feasible, the pertinent portions could be extracted and certified or their contents covered by stipulation. Initially, this was the responsibility of the appellant. The appellant having failed to make the studies a portion of the record, the commission cannot be excused for having neglected to do so.