Opinion ID: 2052640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Constitutional Requirement of Uniform Assessment

Text: Article 9, § 3 of the Michigan Constitution requires uniform general ad valorem taxation of real and tangible personal property: The legislature shall provide for the uniform general ad valorem taxation of real and tangible personal property not exempt by law. The legislature shall provide for the determination of true cash value of such property; the proportion of true cash value at which such property shall be uniformly assessed, which shall not, after January 1, 1966, exceed 50 percent; and for a system of equalization of assessments. The constitutional rule of uniformity, as expressed in art 9, § 3, has been correctly interpreted to mean not only uniformity in the rate of taxation, but also uniformity in the burden of taxation, Wood v Village of Rockwood, 328 Mich 507, 511; 44 NW2d 163 (1950), and uniformity in the mode of assessment. Titus v State Tax Commission, 374 Mich 476, 480; 132 NW2d 647 (1965). The election afforded under § 13 is an election as to the mode of assessment of personal property. The necessity for uniformity in the same was expressed by this Court in Titus, supra, in which the Lansing assessor had reappraised 20% of the real property in Lansing, beginning a plan whereby, over several years, all of the real property in Lansing would be reappraised. The taxpayers affected by the reappraisal challenged the use of two different modes of assessment within the City of Lansing. This Court found it unnecessary to decide whether either appraisal method then in use in the city conformed to the legislative mandate that property be assessed at its true cash value, because it found it was sufficient for [the] purpose of decision that the variant methods used deprived plaintiffs of the guarantee of uniformity of taxation provided by    the Constitution. The Court further quoted from Exchange Bank of Columbus v Hines, 3 Ohio St 1, 15 (1853), adopted in Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority v Boards of Supervisors of Five Counties, 304 Mich 328, 335-336; 8 NW2d 84 (1943): `What is meant by the words taxing by a uniform rule? And to what is the rule applied by the Constitution? No language in the Constitution, perhaps, is more important than this; and to accomplish the beneficial purposes intended, it is essential that they should be truly interpreted, and correctly applied. Taxing is required to be by a uniform rule; that is, by one and the same unvarying standard. Taxing by a uniform rule requires uniformity not only in the rate of taxation, but also uniformity in the mode of the assessment upon the taxable valuation. Uniformity in taxing implies equality in the burden of taxation; and this equality of burden cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of the assessment, as well as in the rate of taxation. But this is not all. The uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which it applies. If a State tax, it must be uniform over all the State; if a county, town, or city tax, it must be uniform throughout the extent of the territory to which it is applicable.' 374 Mich 480. The Court, therefore, held that the use of two different modes of assessing similar real property located within Lansing violated the rule of uniformity guaranteed by the Constitution. [6] In Ready-Power, supra, we further discussed the rule of uniformity with respect to § 13. This Court stated that: If the city's argument is to be approved, we must, in the same breath, approve a violation of the constitutional guaranty of uniformity, in that we must admit that it is proper for Detroit to tax plaintiff on a fiscal year basis and permit the city of Dearborn to tax on a different basis. 336 Mich 526. The Court explicitly refused to hold that the language affording an alternative in § 13 allowed such a result.