Marie De Lamielleure Trust v. Department of Treasury
305 Mich. App. 282
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Marie De Lamielleure executed a 2003 quitclaim deed to herself as trustee of the petitioner.
- After De Lamielleure’s death in 2004, petitioner requested rescission of the PRE but the local assessor did not remove the PRE.
- Respondent audited 2005–2007 under MCL 211.7cc(8) and assessed taxes for years petitioner retained a PRE, but did not assess interest or penalties due to the assessor’s error.
- The Tax Tribunal reinstated the principal residence exemption (ERE/PRE) for the years at issue following petitioner’s reconsideration.
- The Michigan Court reversed and remanded, holding the Tribunal committed an error of law and the PRE issues should be resolved under MCL 211.7cc; the plain language supports denial of the exemption with no interest where rescission was not properly removed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 211.7cc(8) authorizes review/waiver when PRE was not claimed | DeLamielleure argues 7cc(8) does not apply since no PRE claim existed | Treasury contends 7cc(8) authorizes review/waiver for errors in PRE classification | Yes; 7cc(8) applies to correcting classification errors and waiving interest. |
| Whether an affidavit for a PRE filed before 2004 remains in effect after rescission attempts | Petitioner maintained a PRE despite an ineffective rescission | Treasury contends rescission ends the claim | Affidavit remains in effect until rescinded; petitioner benefited from the claim. |
| Whether the assessor’s failure to rescind requires denial of the exemption with no interest | The exemption should not be denied with penalties if rescission occurred | The exemption denied when rescinded and no interest should be imposed | When rescission is proper but not removed, exemption denial proceeds with no interest/penalty for timely rescission. |
| Whether the Tribunal’s interpretation of 7cc(8) was correct or a legal error | Tribunal’s reading aligned with Mikelonis unpublished opinion | Statutory text governs; 7cc(8) applies more broadly | The Tribunal committed a legal error; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Assoc, LP v Dep’t of Treasury, 250 Mich App 656 (2002) (statutory language must be read in its ordinary meaning; no read-in beyond text)
- Paris Meadows, LLC v City of Kentwood, 287 Mich App 136 (2010) (ambiguous language resolved in taxpayer’s favor; strict construction against taxpayer where unambiguous)
- Elias Bros Restaurants, Inc v Treasury Dep’t, 452 Mich 144 (1996) (tax exemptions strictly construed against taxpayer; ambiguities resolve in taxpayer’s favor)
- Mich Milk Producers Ass’n v Dep’t of Treasury, 242 Mich App 486 (2000) (ambiguities resolved in taxpayer’s favor; exemptions interpreted under statute)