Court Opinion

ID: 9906145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 05:05:06.730327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:06.902893
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                          STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PROQUEST, LLC,                                                       UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     November 30, 2023
               Petitioner-Appellant,

v                                                                    No. 362977
                                                                     Tax Tribunal
TOWNSHIP OF YPSILANTI,                                               LC No. 22-001726-TT

               Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and SWARTZLE and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

         Petitioner owns real property that it claims qualified for an Eligible Manufacturing
Personal Property (EMPP) tax-exemption. To claim that tax-exemption, petitioner attempted to
file State Tax Commission Form 5278 with respondent. Respondent did not receive the form, and
respondent assessed the property’s taxable-value without any exemption. The Tax Tribunal upheld
respondent’s assessment because the exemption form was not delivered. We affirm.

        Under MCL 211.9m(2)(c), petitioner was required to “deliver” the requisite documentation
to respondent by February 20, 2022. Petitioner completed Form 5278, and sent it in the mail via
the United States Postal Service on February 19, 2022. Petitioner did not follow the tracking
number on its mail, and it did not follow up with respondent to determine if the form had been
delivered. On March 29, 2022, petitioner received its Form 5278 in the mail with a notice that it
was being “returned for postage.” Petitioner contacted respondent’s assessor, and the assessor
informed petitioner that the property’s taxable-value had already been assessed without an
exemption. Further, respondent’s assessor asserted that it did not have the authority to make any
change to the assessment because the March Board of Review had already adjourned, and the July
and December sessions for the Board of Review did not have the authority to grant an exemption.
Petitioner did not submit the form to respondent, and petitioner did not make any appeal to the
Board of Review.

        Instead, petitioner filed its petition for the EMPP tax-exemption with the Tax Tribunal, and
it argued that the Tax Tribunal should order respondent to accept the form as timely delivered
because the form was timely mailed. Respondent replied that the Tax Tribunal did not have

                                                -1-
jurisdiction to hear the matter because the application for the exemption was never delivered and,
thus, never denied. The Tax Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s claim without a hearing:

       The Tribunal has considered the Motion and the file in the above-captioned case
       and finds that it has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal. Actual delivery, not proof
       of mailing, of STC Form 5278 upon the township is required. In the present case,
       the mailing was returned to Petitioner for insufficient postage, and thus the
       requirement of actual delivery was not met. As it relates to the filing of the current
       petition by the May 31, 2022, statutory filing deadline, this fact is irrelevant
       because Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites of
       MCL 211.9m(2)(c) and MCL 211.9n(2)(c). Finally, as it relates to Petitioner’s
       equitable arguments, the Tribunal has no equitable powers to waive or otherwise
       disregard statutory requirements or filing deadlines that would allow them to
       consider such issues.

Petitioner now appeals.

        This Court is limited in its review of a Tax Tribunal’s decision. Campbell v Dep’t of
Treasury, 509 Mich 230, 237; 984 NW2d 13 (2022). Unless there is a claim of fraud, this Court
reviews Tax Tribunal decisions to determine whether that tribunal misapplied the law or adopted
a wrong legal principle. Wilson v City of Grand Rapids, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___
(2023) (Docket No. 358657); slip op. at 3. This Court will not disturb the tribunal’s factual
findings so long as they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the
whole record. Id. Additionally, this Court reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation,
Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v Detroit Pub Schs, 485 Mich 69, 75; 780 NW2d 753 (2010), as well as
issues of subject-matter jurisdiction, Wells Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, ___ Mich App
___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 359399); slip op at 2.

       Petitioner first argues that it timely filed Form 5278 under MCL 211.9m(2)(c) because the
form was postmarked before the deadline. The relevant part of MCL 211.9m(2)(c) reads as
follows:

       The combined document prescribed in this section must be completed and delivered
       to the assessor of the township or city in which the qualified new personal property
       is located by February 20 of each year for any year the exemption is claimed before
       2023 and the first year the exemption is claimed in a year after 2022. However, if
       February 20 of a year is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the delivery deadline
       for that year is the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. For
       purposes of a combined document delivered by the United States Postal Service,
       the delivery is timely if the postmark date is on or before the delivery deadline
       prescribed in this subdivision. If the combined document prescribed in this section
       is not timely delivered to the assessor of the township or city, a late application may
       be filed directly with the March Board of Review before its final adjournment by
       submitting the combined document prescribed in this section. The board of review
       shall not accept a filing after adjournment of its March meeting. An appeal of a
       denial by the March Board of Review may be made by filing a petition with the
       Michigan tax tribunal within 35 days of the denial notice. [Emphasis added.]

                                                -2-
        “When interpreting a statute, we must ascertain the Legislature’s intent,” which is
accomplished “by giving the words selected by the Legislature their plain and ordinary meanings,
and by enforcing the statute as written.” Griffin v Griffin, 323 Mich App 110, 120; 916 NW2d
292 (2018) (cleaned up). If a statute is unambiguous, it must be applied as written. McQueer v
Perfect Fence Co, 502 Mich 276, 286; 971 NW2d 584 (2018). “[U]nless the Legislature indicates
otherwise, when it repeatedly uses the same phrase in a statute, that phrase should be given the
same meaning throughout the statute.” Robinson v Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 18; 782 NW2d 171
(2010).

        There is no dispute that Form 5278 is the required “combined document” for the purposes
of MCL 211.9m(2)(c), nor is there any dispute that petitioner completed Form 5278 and mailed it
via the United States Postal Service on February 19, 2022. Petitioner’s form, however, was never
delivered by the United States Postal Service to respondent’s assessor. Instead, the form was
returned to petitioner. The plain language of MCL 211.9m(2)(c) allows for forms to be accepted
after the deadline if it was delivered by the United States Postal Service with a postmark date on
or before the deadline. Simply put, even though petitioner postmarked the form before the
deadline, it was never delivered to the assessor by the United States Postal Service.

        Petitioner argues that “delivered by the United States Postal Service” means that the
taxpayer must timely deliver the exemption request to the United States Postal Service for mailing.
Our Legislature did not provide a definition of the term “delivered,” and petitioner offers examples
of the definition of “delivery” that it finds persuasive. Petitioner ignores, however, that the entire
phrase of MCL 211.9m(2)(c) is that the form must be “delivered by the United States Postal
Service.” (Emphasis added). Petitioner’s interpretation misconstrues the plain language of the
statute when read as a whole, which indicates that the form must be delivered to the assessor by
the United States Postal Service since our Legislature consistently used the term “delivered” in the
context of having the form “delivered to the assessor.” MCL 211.9m(2)(c).

        The United States Postal Service did not deliver the form to the assessor and, thus,
petitioner’s application for the exemption was not timely submitted. Respondent was not
presented with the opportunity to make a final decision on petitioner’s application for the
exemption, and, accordingly, the Tax Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear
petitioner’s claim because there was no final decision on petitioner’s application. MCL
205.731(a).

        Petitioner argues that the Tax Tribunal had jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a(6) because it
was disputing an assessment. Petitioner ignores, however, that “the assessment must be protested
before the board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute under subsection
(6).” MCL 205.735a(3). An exception to this statute is provided under MCL 205.735a(4)(b), but
it requires that the taxpayer filed a statement of assessable property before the Board of Review
commences. Even though petitioner did not timely file a form with respondent, it could have filed
“a late application directly with the March board of review before its final adjournment,” MCL
211.9m(2)(c), and the Tax Tribunal would have had jurisdiction over that decision. Had petitioner
been more diligent by using the Postal Service’s package-tracking system, petitioner could have
identified the problem earlier and filed a late application before the board adjourned. Instead,

                                                 -3-
petitioner did not commence any action before the Board of Review, it did not timely submit an
application to respondent, and, consequently, the Tax Tribunal was without jurisdiction.

       Affirmed.

                                                         /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
                                                         /s/ Brock A. Swartzle
                                                         /s/ Christopher P. Yates

                                             -4-