Spranger v. City of WarrenSpranger v. City of Warren
Lead Opinion
Pеtitioner Karen Spranger appeals by right the judgment of the Tax Tribunal denying her request for a poverty exemption from her 2012 property taxes on her residential property in the city of Warren. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petitioner submitted a City of Warren Poverty Exemption Application to respondent’s March board of review. On her application, petitioner indicated that her source of income was a “Bridge Card” and that she received assistance from the Department of Human Services (DHS) for her utility bills. However, petitioner did not indicate the specific amounts of assistance that she received. Respondent scheduled a special hearing on petitioner’s application for March 22, 2012, but petitioner did not appear for the special hearing because she had never received proper notice thereof. The board of review ultimately denied petitioner’s request, in her absence, оn the grounds that she had submitted an “incomplete application” and it was therefore impossible to determine whether she qualified for a poverty exemption under the standards set forth in MCL 211.7u.
Petitioner appealed in the Tax Tribunal. When petitioner appeared for her scheduled hearing before the Tax Tribunal and attempted to present additional evidence, respondent objected on the ground that the proffered evidence had not been considered by the board of review. The Tax Tribunal found that petitioner had failed to provide specific documentation regarding the total amount of assistance she was receiving. Therefore, the Tax Tribunal concluded, petitioner’s total income and qualification for a poverty exemption could not be determined. On appeal in this Court, petitioner argues that the board of review and the Tax Tribunal erred by basing their conclusions on the lack of specific documentation presented.
Tax exemptions are “strictly сonstrued in favor of the taxing authority,” Sietsema Farms Feeds, LLC v Dep’t of Treasury,
To be eligible for a poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u, a petitioner must prove, among other things, that he or she meets the poverty guidelines. MCL 211.7u(2)(e). Both the board of review and the Tax Tribunal determined that petitioner had failed to provide sufficient information concerning her income and therefore cоuld not prove that she satisfied the poverty guidelines under MCL 211.7u(2)(e).
A petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption must be submitted on a form provided by the local assessing unit, MCL 211.7u(2)(b), and must comply with the policies and guidelines of the local assessing unit, MCL 211.7u(4). In deciding whether to grant the requested poverty exemption, the board of review must generally follow the policies and guidelines of the local taxing unit unless it finds that
As noted previously, petitioner submitted a City of Warren Poverty Exemption Application to the city’s March board of review. The application was received in the city assessor’s office on March 16, 2012.
The city of Warren’s policies and guidelines require that proof of all sources of income, including all family contributions and government assistance, must be submitted with the petitioner’s poverty exemption application. We fully acknowledge that petitioner’s written application was incomplete to the extent that it did not list the specific amounts of assistance that petitioner was receiving through her Bridge Card and from family members. At the same time, however, the bоard of review could have easily inquired into these particular matters at the scheduled special hearing on March 22, 2012, if petitioner had been properly notified to attend. So, too, could petitioner have presented additional evidence at the hearing had she been given proper notice of the scheduled date and time.
Counsel for respondent represented at oral argument before this Court that the city of Warren’s March board of review sat in regular session on March 19, 20, and 21, 2012. The board of review then reconvened for the purpose of holding special hearings on March 22, 2012. Counsel confirmed that petitioner’s special hearing wаs scheduled for March 22, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Although petitioner attended each regular session of the board of review on March 19, 20, and 21, 2012, she did not appear at the time set for her special hearing on March 22, 2012. Counsel for respondent confirmed that petitioner was never notified in writing of her special hearing on March 22, 2012, but was merely told of the hearing date orally, either by telephone or in person, by an unidentified employee of the city of Warren.
As explained, because petitioner did not list the specific amounts of assistance that she was recеiving through her Bridge Card and from family members, the board of review denied her request on the ground that her application was incomplete. On appeal in the Tax Tribunal, the hearing referee found that petitioner owned the subject residential property, had no household assets, and had timely submitted a City of Warren Poverty Exemption
Petitioner has maintained at all relevant times that she never received oral notice, by telephone or in person, of her special hearing date. We can conceive of no reason to believe that petitioner would not have attended her scheduled special hearing on March 22, 2012, had she been properly notified thereof. After all, the record indicates that she diligently attended all three regular session days of the board of review on March 19, 20, and 21, 2012. Yet at no time did anyone from the board of review or city of Warren approach petitioner, ask her whether she was waiting to be heard, or inform her that her sрecial hearing was actually scheduled for a later date.
At the time set for hearing, the board of review was empowered to take testimony under oath and consider other additional proofs. See Warren City Charter, § 9.9(b); see also McMorran v Wright,
The owner of real property is entitled to the protection of constitutional due process with respect to the assessment and collection of property taxes. Brandon Twp v Tomkow,
This Court has previously observed that taxpayеrs are charged with knowing the powers and duties of the board of review, as well as the dates that the board of review is scheduled to meet, because those dates are published in the local newspaper. Fisher,
Persons or their agents who have a scheduled hearing before the board of review must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. MCL 211.30(3). For this statutory right to have any meaning at all, a local taxing authority must necessarily inform the taxpayer or his or her agent of the date and time of the scheduled hearing. Indeed, this Court has held that in order to comply with procedural due process, a board of review is required to give “personal notice by mail” when the petitioner’s address is known to the taxing authority. Fisher, 53 Mich App at 122. It is beyond dispute that the city of Warren was fully aware of petitioner’s address, which was provided on her poverty exemption application. The city of Warrеn’s
We wish to make clear that the Tax Tribunal did not commit any error of its own in this case. “[T]he Tax Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions . . . .” WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy (On Remand),
Nevertheless, although the error in this case was committed by respondent and its board of review, the only available remedy is a remand for a new hearing before the Tax Tribunal. Nicholson,
We reverse the decision of the board of review and vacate the judgment of the Tax Tribunal. We remand this matter to the Tax Tribunal for an independent consideration de novo of petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u for tax year 2012. MCL 205.735a(2); see also Nicholson,
Notes
Respondent’s March board of review convened on March 19, 2012. Accordingly, petitioner’s application was timely filed. MCL 211.7u(3).
See MCL 211.7u(2)(b).
Petitioner has consistently maintained that she was never orally informed of her special hearing date, by telephone or in person. Respondent has submitted no affidavit or other admissible documentary evidence to establish that the claimed oral notice to petitioner actually occurred.
As exрlained previously, the Tax Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s claim for a poverty exemption following an unsuccessful request before the board of review. Nicholson,
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would affirm the judgment of the Tax Tribunal denying petitioner a poverty exemption against her 2012 property taxes for the residential property that shе owned in the city of Warren.
I agree with the majority that the board of review violated state statute, MCL 211.30(3), and petitioner’s due process rights by failing to adequately notify her of the special hearing date and afford her a meaningful opportunity to be heard. However, because petitioner had a de novo hearing before the Tаx Tribunal, see MCL 205.735a(2), where she was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, I would conclude that the constitutional error committed by the board of review was cured. Thus, I find it unnecessary to remand to the Tax Tribunal for another hearing.
Following the denial of her request for a poverty exemption by the board of review, petitioner apрealed to the Tax Tribunal. The hearing before the Tax Tribunal was “original and independent and [was] considered de novo.” MCL 205.735a(2). Petitioner was provided the opportunity to be heard and allowed to supplement her application. In fact, petitioner presented additional documentation to the Tax Tribunal, which included a рrevious decision by the Tax Tribunal and four documents showing that the Department of Human Services had paid her utility bills in July 2010, October 2010, June 2011, and January 2011. Additionally, petitioner and her sister testified at the hearing. Further, a proposed judgment was entered following the hearing, at which petitioner had the opportunity to file exceptions but did not do so. Unlike the рlaintiff in Nicholson v Birmingham Bd of Review,
In Nicholson, the hoard of review denied the plaintiffs request for an exemption from her 1986 and 1987 property tax assessments. Nicholson,