Court Opinion

ID: 9738927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:05:26.06193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.274075
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
I concur in the majority’s response to the question on which this Court granted leave to appeal that on the remand ordered by the majority "the Tax Tribunal may rely on an approach that takes into account the value, if any, of a federal government mortgage subsidy”1 or that it would be "proper for the Tax Tribunal to consider those payments in the valuation process.”2
I also concur that on remand evidence of an entirely new method of evaluation may also be presented that is "accurate and . . . reasonably related to the fair market value”3 or "true cash value”4 of the property.
Although the statute provides that "cash value” means the "usual selling price” at "private sale,”5 that does not mean that a subsidized mortgage that reflects the historical cost rather than the cash value should be included at face value. The lodestar is the usual selling price for cash, and a paper "value” should generally be reflected at its cash equivalent. Leverage and tax benefits might add to the cash value if the cash equivalent of all paper values exceeded the usual selling price for cash.
An insurance "value” reflects replacement cost not the true cash value or usual selling price for cash, and "values” set forth in a financial statement or for federal income tax purposes generally *505reflect historical cost less depreciation, and often are unrelated to true cash value or the usual selling price.
Uniformity is achieved by valuing all assessable property at the same proportion of true cash value or the usual selling price for cash.
Whatever may be the flaws in the Allen appraisal, the foregoing principles are, in general, immutable.
In all events, I am inclined to believe, subject to being persuaded otherwise, that the true cash value cannot exceed the usual selling price for cash were the property no longer subsidized and no longer subject to the restrictions and benefits of a §236 project with a rental assistance subsidy under §8 and whatever restrictions mshda may have imposed.
Mallett, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 Ante, p 482.

 Ante, p 495.

 Ante, pp 482, 502.

 Ante, p 482.

 MCL 211.27(1); MSA 7.27(1) quoted ante, pp 483-484.