Opinion ID: 1761035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: general level of property assessments.

Text: Appellant in its brief states: In its decision, State tax commission applied a 50% ratio of fair market value as the general level of assessments in Detroit. At the hearing, the city of Detroit denied that its assessments bore any ratio to fair market values. The only testimony in this regard was that furnished by appellant. Appellant produced in evidence the 1963 State board of equalization report; Detroit's 1963 auditor general's report; the Wayne County supervisor's report; the United States department of commerce study and the testimony of a member of State tax commission's staff. All of these reports, having official status, disclosed that the general level of assessments in Detroit for both real and personal property was 42.7%. Without any evidence from the city of Detroit in opposition thereto, State tax commission nevertheless found as a fact that the general level of assessments in Detroit was 50%. Thus appellant contends, this finding, too, was contrary to and totally unsupported by the only lawful evidence before State tax commission which established beyond question that the general level of Detroit property assessments was 42.7%. The State tax commission found as follows: State tax commission studies of real property indicate that real property in the city of Detroit was assessed in the significant range of 38-52% of its true cash value as of the tax days in question. Studies of personal property assessment levels indicate that personalty was assessed at approximately 56% of its true cash value. The assessment level of all property, real and personal, in the city of Detroit for the tax years in question has been determined to approximate one-half or 50% of its true cash value. Thus, the tax commission has determined all assessment appeals during the years in question by application of 50% to the true cash value of the property. The studies of the commission upon which it based its decision are not contained in appellant's appendix nor in the record certified to this Court. Appellee Michigan State tax commission took no action to identify these studies on the record at the hearing before it, nor did the commission print a separate appendix for the purpose of exhibiting the studies to this Court. If we were convinced as to the nonexistence of the commission studies and if there were no evidence before us to support the 50% average assessment level, we would be obliged to hold that the commission committed an error of law since its decision would then be unsupported by any evidence. The commission stated that it had made available every shred of data and evidence contained in its records to both taxpayer and taxing authority. Apparently, it is the contention of appellant that, because the commission did not see fit specifically to order its studies to be made a part of the record when the hearing took place, there is no evidence to support its decision. Appellant has misconstrued the nature of the hearing afforded it by order of this Court. The purpose of that hearing, as decided in Pavilion, was to give the taxpayer an opportunity to challenge the validity of any studies, reports, or findings of the commission's staff, and to cross-examine the persons preparing the same. Commissioner Barr discussed the nature of the record at the close of the hearing and insisted that all files and records of the commission be a part of the record in this matter. It is evident from an examination of what took place at the hearing that the taxpayer was not misled as to the nature of the studies and that, as a matter of fact, the 50% level was assumed to be shown by such studies. The staff report prepared by Robert Case was a part of the record and copies were in the hands of counsel during the hearing. The staff report, in commenting on the total projected average net income of the properties and the income capitalization rate, said this assumes a 50% assessment level. Additionally, in the concluding paragraph, under the heading District Supervisors Comments, this statement appears: Our appraisal also assumes a 50% assessment level. Taxpayer's counsel cross-examined Robert Case extensively concerning the contents of the report which he had prepared. In the course of that examination, the following occurred: Q. You use a figure of 2.6% for taxes in your report for real estate taxes. How is that 2.6 arrived at? A. As I recall the 2.6% [7] is arrived at by relating it to the 50% assessment level here in the city of Detroit. The supervisor, Mr. Nordbeck, might be more qualified to go into detail about that than I am. Q. In other words, you took the prevailing tax rate of about $53 a thousand and cut it in half because of the prevailing assessment rate in the city of Detroit at about 50% of fair market value, is that right? (Emphasis supplied.)
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.