Denton v. Department of Treasury
894 N.W.2d 694
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Leet and Patsy Denton moved from Michigan to Florida in 2007 and provided a Florida "Other County/State Benefit Cancellation Form" to their Michigan assessor to evidence their Florida homestead exemption and request cancellation of Michigan residency-based benefits.
- The Michigan assessor signed the Florida form but did not explicitly file Michigan Department of Treasury Form 2602 (the prescribed Michigan rescission form) to rescind the principal residence exemption (PRE).
- After an audit, the Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury) denied the PRE for tax years 2010–2013 and issued corrected tax bills assessing back taxes and interest; petitioners paid those amounts and sought waiver of the assessed interest.
- The local assessor filed Treasury Form 4813 asserting an assessor error — failure to rescind the PRE after an owner’s written request — and attached the Florida form; Treasury denied the interest-waiver request for lack of sufficient written documentation under MCL 211.7cc(8).
- The Dentons appealed to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT); the MTT agreed with Treasury that the statute requires the owner to file the prescribed Form 2602 for a request "in writing," and upheld the denial. The Court of Appeals reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Denton’s Argument | Treasury’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "in writing" in MCL 211.7cc(8) requires filing Dept. of Treasury Form 2602 | "In writing" means any written request (e.g., the Florida form) and is not limited to Form 2602 | "In writing" means the specific prescribed rescission form (Form 2602) must be filed | "In writing" is broader than Form 2602; Treasury erred by treating it as synonymous with the prescribed form |
| Whether Treasury properly denied an interest-waiver request when Form 2602 was not filed | Treasury should still exercise discretion to waive interest when an owner made a written rescission request even if not on Form 2602 | Denial was proper because statute ties rescission procedure to the prescribed form | Treasury abused its discretion by denying waiver based on the erroneous legal rule that Form 2602 is the exclusive "writing" required |
Key Cases Cited
- Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v. Detroit Pub. Sch., 485 Mich. 69 (statutory interpretation review de novo)
- Elias Bros. Restaurants Inc. v. Treasury Dep’t, 452 Mich. 144 (tax exemptions strictly construed but statutes given common usage meaning)
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303 (clear statutory language enforced as written)
- Gillie v. Genesee Co. Treasurer, 277 Mich. App. 333 (statutory words provide evidence of legislative intent)
- EldenBrady v. Albion, 294 Mich. App. 251 (context on PRE statutory scheme)
- Farrington v. Total Petroleum Inc., 442 Mich. 201 (courts will not assume legislative omission across statutes)
- Kidder v. Ptacin, 284 Mich. App. 166 (error of law can constitute abuse of discretion)
- Autodie, LLC v. City of Grand Rapids, 305 Mich. App. 423 (use dictionary to discern plain meaning when statute silent)
- Hines v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 265 Mich. App. 432 (words of a statute must be read in context)
- United States Fidelity & Ins. Co. v. Mich. Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, 484 Mich. 1 (different words generally connote different meanings)