Fisher-New Center Co. v. State Tax Commission
167 N.W.2d 263
Mich.
1969
Check Treatment

FISHER-NEW CENTER COMPANY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.

Calendar No. 4, Docket No. 51,603; Calendar No. 7, Docket No. 51,603

Supreme Court of Michigan

Decided April 1, 1968

Decided on rehearing May 5, 1969. Rehearing denied July 31, 1969.

381 Mich 713

Appeal from State Tax Commission. Submitted June 7, 1967. Submitted on rehearing November 13, 1968.

ON REHEARING.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT — STATE TAX COMMISSION.

The provisions of the administrative procedures act apply to proceedings before the State tax commission; thus, State tax commission‘s findings and decisions must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record (Const 1963, art 6, § 28; CLS 1961, § 24.108).

2. TAXATION — ASSESSMENT — STATE TAX COMMISSION — ERROR OF LAW — WRONG PRINCIPLES.

Assessment of plaintiff‘s property by State tax commission was reversible because of error of law and adoption of wrong principles where it was unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

DISSENTING OPINION.

T. M. KAVANAGH and ADAMS, JJ.

3. TAXATION — STATE TAX COMMISSION — TRUE CASH VALUE.

Determination by State tax commission as to true cash value of taxpayer‘s property is affirmed on rehearing in case where application of the reproduction cost less depreciation and obsolescence and capitalization of income methods by commission staff appraisers was not shown to have involved fraud, error of law, or the application of wrong principles, and where there was evidence to support commission findings.

REFERENCES FOR POINTS IN HEADNOTES

[1] 2 Am Jur 2d, Administrative Law §§ 202, 203.

[2] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 654.

[3] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 770 et seq.

Fisher-New Center Company, a Michigan corporation, taxpayer, appealed its property tax assessments by defendant City of Detroit for the years 1963, 1964, and 1965 to the State Tax Commission. Order entered by State Tax Commission fixing the assessment of Fisher-New Center Company property. Taxpayer appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the City of Detroit cross-appealed, both by leave granted. Taxpayer appeals, and City of Detroit cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by leave granted before decision by Court of Appeals, pursuant to GCR 1963, 852. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.

Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, and David M. Miro (Jason L. Honigman and John Sklar, of counsel), for Fisher-New Center Company.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William D. Dexter and Richard R. Roesch, Assistant Attorneys General, for State Tax Commission.

Robert Reese, Corporation Counsel, and Julius C. Pliskow and Arthur Yim, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for City of Detroit.

ON REHEARING.

DETHMERS, J. Upon this rehearing I remain persuaded, as I was when I joined in the opinion of Mr. Justice SOURIS on the original hearing, reported at

, that he was right in holding that the administrative procedures act* is applicable to State tax commission proceedings notwithstanding
; that the act requires more than “any evidence” or a “scintilla” to sustain findings of fact made by administrative agencies, including the State tax commission, when such findings are subjected to judicial review; that the act and Const 1963, art 6, § 28, require that such agency findings and decisions must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record; that application of such requirements to the record of proceedings before the State tax commission in this case, as outlined and discussed in the SOURIS opinion, reveals that the commission findings are not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, and are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence; that this constitutes an error of law; that such error presents a question for judicial determination and, upon judicial review, the constitutional grounds and requirement for reversal, under Const 1963, art 6, § 28, namely, error of law and adoption of wrong principles.

Accordingly, I would conclude this opinion in the concluding language of the SOURIS opinion, as follows (pp 388, 389):

“I agree with Justice ADAMS’ opinion regarding the city of Detroit‘s cross-appeal.

“For the reasons set forth above, I would reverse and remand for the purpose of recomputing the valuation and assessment of taxpayer‘s property at a capitalization rate within the range established by the competent evidence in this record as discussed

in part II of this opinion. I would also assess costs in favor of the taxpayer.”

T. E. BRENNAN, C. J., and KELLY, and BLACK, JJ., concurred with DETHMERS, J.

T. M. KAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). In this cause rehearing was granted May 6, 1968, Justices T. M. KAVANAGH, ADAMS, and T. E. BRENNAN dissenting. For the reasons set forth in the majority opinion of this Court in

, and in the opinion in
, we should affirm, on rehearing, the decision of the State tax commission both as to appeal and cross-appeal.

The State tax commission should have costs of rehearing.

ADAMS, J., concurred with T. M. KAVANAGH, J.

T. G. KAVANAGH, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Notes

*
CLS 1961, § 24.101 et seq. (Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 3.560[21.1] et seq.).