Respondent appeals by right the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s ruling that the State Tax Commission (STC) lacked jurisdiction under MCL 211.154 to correct the taxable value of petitioner’s commercial real estate for the tax years 2001 through 2003. The error arose over a two-year period when petitioner was building a motel on the subject property. During that time *624 respondent’s former assessor continued to calculate the property’s taxable value on the basis of the taxable value of the motel established when it was only half completed, which was adjusted annually for inflation as permitted by MCL 211.27a. The STC entered an order in response to respondent’s petition under § 154 to correct the taxable value of the property for tax year 2001 from $841,604 to $1,622,420, for tax year 2002 from $868,535 to $1,674,338, and for tax year 2003 from $881,563 to $1,699,453. Petitioner sought relief from the STC’s order in the Tax Tribunal, which ruled that the STC lacked jurisdiction to correct an assessor’s error in calculating taxable value because respondent had failed to show that the subject property was “incorrectly reported or omitted” within the meaning of § 154. We hold that because the Tax Tribunal erred as a matter of law, its judgment must be reversed.
I. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The parties submitted this dispute to the Tax Tribunal on stipulated facts. The most pertinent are:
7. Superior Hotels began construction of a motel known as a “Baymont Inn” on the property in 1997 and completed construction of the hotel in 1998.
8. The Township assessed the subject property as 50% complete on December 31, 1997 and calculated the 1998 assessed value and taxable value accordingly.
9. For the 1999 tax year (December 31,1998 assessment date), the Township assessed the subject property as 100% complete, but calculated the 1999 taxable value by applying the applicable inflation rate to the 1998 taxable value which 1998 taxable value was based on a 50% completion calculation.
10. The Township assessed the subject property as 100% complete for the 1999 tax year and such assessment was reflected on the assessment roll.
*625 11. No portion of the subject property was “omitted” from assessment by the Township.
15. The Township filed Michigan Department of Treasury Form L-4154, Assessor or Equalization Director’s Notice of Property Incorrectly Reported or Omitted from Assessment Roll (copy attached as Exhibit A) with the State Tax Commission alleging an error made by the Township in calculating the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxable values for the subject property.
16. On March 7, 2005, Superior Hotels appeared before the State Tax Commission.
17. The State Tax Commission accepted the Section 154 petition filed by the Township and increased the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxable values of the subject property as requested by the Township.
At issue in this case is MCL 211.154, the critical first sentence of which provides:
If the state tax commission determines that property subject to the collection of taxes under this act[ 1 ] ... has been incorrectly reported or omitted for any previous year, but not to exceed the current assessment year and 2 years immediately preceding the date the incorrect reporting or omission was discovered and disclosed to the state tax commission, the state tax commission shall place the corrected assessment value for the appropriate years on the appropriate assessment roll. [Emphasis added.]
*626
The Tax Tribunal first noted that the Legislature did not define the statutory terms “incorrectly reported” or “omitted,” so it was permitted to construe those terms to determine whether the STC had jurisdiction under § 154. To ascertain the meaning of the term “incorrectly report,” the Tax Tribunal relied primarily on
Detroit v Norman Allan & Co,
In reaching its conclusion that § 154 did not confer jurisdiction on the STC in this case, the Tax Tribunal also relied on dicta in Centre Mgt v City of Ferndale, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 10, 2004 (Docket No. 248266). The Tax Tribunal, quoting Centre Mgt, supra at 2, opined, “ ‘MCL 211.154 did not confer jurisdiction on the STC *627 to correct an assessor’s error in mistakenly undervaluing the property in previous years because MCL 211.154 does not apply to property conceded to be taxable but alleged to be improperly assessed.’” 2 S uperior Hotels, supra at 123. In addition, the Tax Tribunal quoted its own prior decision in Michigan Basic Prop Ins v State Tax Comm, 15 MTTR 423 (Docket No. 296251, March 13, 2006), at 429, which in turn quoted Eagle Glen, supra at 3, stating “ ‘MCL 211.154 does not “confer jurisdiction on the state tax commission to correct an assessor’s error in mistakenly undervaluing the property, because MCL 211.154 does not apply to property conceded to be taxable but alleged to be improperly assessed.” ’ ” Superior Hotels, supra at 123-124. On the basis of this authority, the Tax Tribunal ruled that § 154 does not grant jurisdiction to the STC “to correct an assessor’s undervaluing the property for previous years.” Id. at 124.
The Tax Tribunal further ruled that respondent’s error in calculating the subject property’s taxable value might arguably have been considered “a clerical error or a mutual mistake of fact relative to the correct assessment figures, the rate of taxation, or the mathematical computation relating to the assessing of taxes,” correctible under MCL 211.53b. But the Tax Tribunal opined that respondent’s failure to appear before the board of review was fatal to correcting the assessor’s error in calculating taxable value under that *628 section. Superior Hotels, supra at 124. This same defect, the Tax Tribunal ruled, also deprived it of jurisdiction to correct the assessor’s error in calculating taxable value. Id., citing MCL 205.735.
Accordingly, the Tax Tribunal entered judgment for petitioner, reinstating the original taxable values for the subject property for the tax years 2001 to 2003. Superior Hotels, supra at 124-125. Respondent appeals by right.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of the Tax Tribunal’s decision is limited.
Mt Pleasant v State Tax Comm,
The primary goal of construing a statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.
Mt Pleasant, supra
at 53. The first step in doing this is to review the language of the statute.
United Parcel Service, Inc v Bureau of Safety & Regulation,
277 Mich App
*629
192, 202;
In reading a statute, this Court must assign to every word or phrase its plain and ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has provided specific definitions or has used technical words or phrases that have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law. MCL 8.3a;
Ford Motor Co v Woodhaven,
We also note that “ ‘the construction given to a statute by those charged with the duty of executing it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons.’”
In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Michigan,
III. ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis of § 154 by reading it both as a whole and as part of the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1 et seq., to determine the Legislature’s overall purpose. We conclude that in § 154 the Legislature has conferred administrative jurisdiction on the STC to correct erroneous property tax assessments in specific limited circumstances. Specifically, the STC may correct an “assessment value” that results in an “assessment change.” MCL 211.154(1). An “assessment change” under § 154 may result “in increased property taxes,” MCL 211.154(2), or might “resultG in a decreased tax liability,” MCL 211.154(6). That the STC’s administrative jurisdiction under § 154 to correct erroneous property tax assessments is not precluded by the appellate jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal is manifested by the Legislature’s extension of jurisdiction to correct assessment values “for any previous year, but not to exceed the current assessment year and 2 years immediately preceding the date the incorrect reporting or omission was discovered and disclosed to the state tax commission.” MCL 211.154(1). This time frame is well *631 beyond the limited time to appeal an assessment dispute to the Tax Tribunal, which, in general, must also be contemporaneously protested before the board of review. See MCL 205.735 and MCL 205.735a. 3 Moreover, subsection 7 of § 154 clearly provides that after a final decision by the STC in a § 154 proceeding, the appellate jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal may be invoked, as in this case: “A person to whom property is assessed pursuant to this section may appeal the state tax commission order to the Michigan tax tribunal.” MCL 211.154(7).
The Legislature originally added subsection 7 to § 154 when
Our reading of § 154 is consistent with the legislative scheme regarding both the Tax Tribunal and the STC. The Tax Tribunal is a “quasi-judicial agency,” MCL 205.721, that is granted “exclusive and original jurisdiction” of “proceeding^] for direct review of a final
*632
decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under property tax laws,” MCL 205.731(a). “A ‘proceeding’ is defined as an ‘appeal’ in MCL 205.703 ....”
Wikman v City of Novi,
On the other hand, as already noted, the Legislature in MCL 211.150 has granted the STC general supervisory authority over the assessment of property for taxation. The Legislature has specifically conferred on the STC the authority “[t]o receive all complaints as to property liable to taxation that has not been assessed or that has been fraudulently or improperly assessed, and to investigate the same, and to take such proceedings as will correct the irregularity complained of, if any is *633 found to exist.” MCL 211.150(3). This authority implicates the administrative, rather than the appellate, jurisdiction of the STC. See Jefferson Schools, supra at 398-399. Thus, the administrative jurisdiction of the STC available under § 154 to correct the “assessment value” of “property subject to the collection of taxes” that “has been incorrectly reported or omitted” dovetails harmoniously with the appellate jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal to review the STC’s final agency determination or order under § 154. MCL 211.154(7).
The first sentence of § 154 establishes the limited circumstances to which it applies. There must be an “assessment value” that needs to be corrected as a result of taxable property having been “incorrectly reported or omitted . . . .” We agree with the Tax Tribunal’s observation in SSAB Hardtech, Inc v State Tax Comm, 13 MTTR 164 (Docket No. 288672, March 30, 2004), at 174: “It is reasonable to conclude that section 154 only applies when the assessment was based upon the incorrect reporting” or omission. (Emphasis in original.) We also conclude that “assessment value” as used in § 154 means either “taxable value” or 50 percent of the true cash value of property subject to taxation as those terms are defined in the Michigan Constitution and statutes.
When the Legislature does not provide definitions, courts may consult a dictionary.
Halloran v Bhan,
In 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A, “which amended article 9, § 3 of the Michigan Constitution.”
Toll Northville Ltd v Northville Twp,
The legislature shall provide for the uniform general ad valorem taxation of real and tangible personal property not exempt by law except for taxes levied for school operating purposes. The legislature shall provide for the determination of true cash value of such property; the proportion of true cash value at which such property shall be uniformly assessed, which shall not, after January 1,1966, exceed 50 percent; and for a system of equalization of assessments. For taxes levied in 1995 and each year thereafter, the legislature shall provide that the taxable value of each parcel of property adjusted for additions and losses, shall not increase each year by more than the increase in the immediately preceding year in the general price level, as defined in section 33 of this article, or 5 percent, whichever is less until ownership of the parcel of property is transferred. When ownership of the parcel of property is trans *635 ferred as defined by law, the parcel shall be assessed at the applicable proportion of current true cash value.
The purpose of Proposal A, as explained by our Supreme Court, was
“to generally limit increases in property taxes on a parcel of property, as long as it remains owned by the same party, by capping the amount that the ‘taxable value’ of the property may increase each year, even if the ‘true cash value,’ that is, the actual market value, of the property rises at a greater rate. However, a qualification is made to allow adjustments for ‘additions.’” [Toll Northville, supra at 12, quoting WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy,466 Mich 117 , 121-122;643 NW2d 564 (2002).]
The Legislature implemented Proposal A by amending relevant portions of the GPTA. See
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, property shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3),[ 5 ] for taxes levied in 1995 and for each year after 1995, the taxable value of each parcel of property is the lesser of the following:
(a) The property’s taxable value in the immediately preceding year minus any losses, multiplied by the lesser of 1.05 or the inflation rate, plus all additions. For taxes levied in 1995, the property’s taxable value in the immediately preceding year is the property’s state equalized valuation in 1994.
(b) The property’s current state equalized valuation. [MCL 211.27a(l) and (2) (emphasis added).]
*636 MCL 211.27a(ll) provides that “additions” as used in § 27a has the same meaning “as defined in section 34d.” MCL 211.34d(l)(b) defines “additions,” in pertinent part: 6
For taxes levied after 1994, “additions” means, except as provided in subdivision (c), all of the following:
(i) Omitted real property. As used in this subparagraph, “omitted real property” means previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment. Omitted real property shall not increase taxable value as an addition unless the assessing jurisdiction has a property record card or other documentation showing that the omitted real property was not previously included in the assessment. The assessing jurisdiction has the burden of proof in establishing whether the omitted real property is included in the assessment. Omitted real property for the current and the 2 immediately preceding years, discovered after the assessment roll has been completed, shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to the procedures established in section 154. For purposes of determining the taxable value of real property under section 27a, the value of omitted real property is based on the value and the ratio of taxable value to true cash value the omitted real property would have had if the property had not been omitted.
(iii) New construction. As used in this subparagraph, “new construction” means property not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day and not replacement construction. New construction includes the physical addition of equipment or furnishings, subject to the provisions set forth in section 27(2)(a) to (o). For purposes of determining the taxable value of property under section 27a, the value of *637 new construction is the true cash value of the new construction multiplied by 0.50. [Emphasis added.]
This Court in
Kok v Cascade Charter Twp,
*638 The portion of the house that was not completed at the time the property was assessed for the 1999 tax year and that was not included in the assessment of the taxable value of the property falls within the meaning of “addition” for purposes of determining the taxable value of the property for the 2000 tax year. Applying the plain language of the statute, the taxable value of the property for the 2000 tax year is the lesser of the 1999 taxable value multiplied by the lesser of 1.05 or the inflation rate, “plus the true cash value of the new construction multiplied [by] 0.50.” MCL 211.27a(2)(a); MCL 211.34d(l)(b)[iii]. [Kok, supra at 543.]
Applying the plain language of MCL 211.27a(2)(a) and MCL 211.34d(l)(b)(iii) to the stipulated facts of this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent’s assessor erred in calculating the taxable value of petitioner’s property for the 1999 tax year (December 31, 1998, assessment date) by failing to include “new construction” that was an “addition” within the meaning of § 27a(2)(a) and § 34d(l)(b)(iii). Although the assessor properly calculated the first part of the 1999 taxable value by multiplying the property’s 1998 taxable value “by the lesser of 1.05 or the inflation rate,” MCL 211.27a(2)(a), the assessor failed to add the “the true cash value of the new construction multiplied by 0.50,” MCL 211.34d(l)(b)(iii). When petitioner’s property was assessed for the tax year 2000, again by only applying the applicable multiplier to the prior year’s taxable value, what was “new construction” in 1999 came within the definition of “omitted real property” under § 34d(l)(b)(i). This conclusion flows from our determination that the word “assessment” as used in the pertinent provisions of the GPTA includes both “taxable value” and 50 percent of true cash value. Thus, the “new construction” completed in 1998 but not included in the determination of the 1999 taxable value became “omitted real property” as of the 2000 assess *639 ment date and assessment dates thereafter because it was “previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment.” MCL 211.34d(l)(b)(i). “Omitted real property for the current and the 2 immediately preceding years, discovered after the assessment roll has been completed, shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to the procedures established in section 154.” Id. Consequently, the Tax Tribunal erred as a matter of law by ruling that the STC lacked jurisdiction under § 154 to issue an order correcting the taxable value for the subject property for the tax years 2001 to 2003.
Our conclusion is not altered by ¶ 11 of the parties’ stipulation, which states, “No portion of the subject property was ‘omitted’ from assessment by the Township.” This stipulation was for the benefit of the Tax Tribunal after the STC had already properly assumed jurisdiction under § 154 and issued its order correcting the taxable value of petitioner’s property for the tax years 2001 to 2003. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by stipulation where it otherwise does not exist.
Bowie v Arder,
Finally, ¶ 11 of the parties’ stipulation must be read together with the rest of the parties’ stipulation to determine whether the facts of this case come within the jurisdiction of the STC under § 154. When read together as a whole, the stipulated facts make plain that the assessor’s error in calculating taxable value under § 27a(2) occurred in this case because the assessor failed to add the new construction in the year it was finished. In the following tax years, this initial error resulted in the omission of taxable property from taxable value. Thus, the Tax Tribunal erred as a matter of law by reaching the legal conclusion from the stipulated facts that this case did not implicate the omission of taxable property within the meaning of § 154.
Last, we address this Court’s decision in
Norman Allan,
on which the Tax Tribunal and petitioner heavily rely for the proposition that the STC’s jurisdiction under § 154 is limited to circumstances where the status of property as either taxable or exempt has been incorrectly reported or omitted. Although several un
*641
published opinions of this Court have followed
Norman Allan,
these opinions have precedential value only to the extent that they are persuasive. MCR 7.215(C)(1). Likewise, although
Norman Allan
has precedential value, it is not binding on this Court because it was decided before November 1,1990. MCR 7.215(J)(1). We agree with respondent and the STC that the Legislature’s adoption of
In Norman Allan, the city of Detroit filed petitions in the Tax Tribunal seeking to increase the personal property tax assessments of two respondent taxpayers, Norman Allan & Company and E. L. Rice & Company. With respect to Norman Allan, the city contended that the company incorrectly reported the value of its personal property subject to taxation. With respect to E. L. Rice, the city contended, among other things, that the company had omitted certain inventory from its report of personal property subject to taxation. Norman Allan, supra at 187-188. The Tax Tribunal granted an order favoring the city and increasing the assessed value of Norman Allan’s personal property and adding the assessed value of the omitted inventory in the case of E. L. Rice. On appeal, this Court reviewed which of two statutory provisions, MCL 211.22 or MCL 211.154, might control the city’s claims. Norman Allan, supra at 189-190.
At the time
Norman Allan
was decided, the first sentence of § 154 only referred to “incorrectly reported” property liable to taxation, and the second sentence provided, “
‘If it appears to the commission that no reason in fact or in law exists which would justify an
*642
exemption of such property from taxation
for those 2 years, it shall immediately place the total aggregate assessment value for the omitted years on the then current assessment roll in the column provided.’”
Norman Allan, supra
at 190 (emphasis added). The Court held that § 154 “applies when property has been incorrectly reported as exempt property but is thought to be (i.e., is ‘made to appear to be’) taxable property.”
Norman Allan, supra
at 191. Although the Court opined that the language of the statute that it emphasized “reinforced” its conclusion, the Court pointed to no other language in § 154 that supported its interpretation that § 154 does not apply when property is undervalued because something other than the status of the property has been “incorrectly reported.”
Norman Allan, supra
at 191-193; cf.
Eagle Glen, supra
at 3 (acknowledging “that MCL 211.154 has been amended since the decision in
Norman Allan,”
but opining that “it is apparent to us that the
Norman Allan
Court did not rely
solely
on this excerpted language in reaching its decision”) (emphasis in original).
The only other basis for the decision in Norman Allan regarding § 154 is the Court’s conclusion that MCL 211.22 was the more pertinent and controlling statute under the facts of that case. At the time of the decision, MCL 211.22 provided for correcting both “incorrectly” reported as well as “omitted” taxable property. Specifically, the statute provided, in part:
“[Testimony Assessment] If the supervisor or assessing officer, a member of the state tax commission, or the director or deputy director of the county tax or equalization department as mandatorily established under section 34 of *643 this act shall be satisfied that any statement so made is incorrect * * * [he] is hereby authorized to set down and assess to such person, firm or corporation so entitled to be assessed, such amount of real and personal property as he may deem reasonable and just.
“Whenever examination and investigation reveal that the written statement of personal property is incorrectly made, that any data submitted is false, or that certain personal property has been omitted from the statement, the supervisor or assessing officer may petition the state tax commission to revise the personal property assessment of the person submitting such erroneous statement, if the petition is filed on or before June 30 of each year." [Norman Allan, supra at 189-190, quoting the version of MCL 211.22 then in effect (emphasis in original).]
The Court held that § 22 “applies when the assessor petitions the tribunal to increase the value on the tax roll of personal property inadequately and improperly reported by a taxpayer but which is conceded to be taxable.” Norman Allan, supra at 191. But the Court held that the city’s petition had not been timely filed. Id. at 193. In particular, the Court held that because the city was “challenging the statements submitted by respondents, it should have proceeded under MCL 211.22; MSA 7.22, and the failure to comply with its requirements necessitates a dismissal of both cases.” Norman Allan, supra at 193 (emphasis in original).
The Legislature apparently was not pleased with the
Norman Allan
decision.
In sum, the Legislature’s adoption of
For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Tax Tribunal erred as a matter of law by concluding that the STC lacked jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, we *645 reverse the judgment of the Tax Tribunal and reinstate the order of the STC correcting the taxable values of petitioner’s property for the tax years 2001 to 2003. As the prevailing party, respondent may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
Notes
The act referred to is the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1
et seq.
Section 154 also includes property subject to taxation under
Centre Mgt, supra,
relied for this dictum on
Norman Allan, supra,
and
Gen Motors Corp v State Tax Comm,
MCL 205.735a supersedes MCL 205.735 for appeals to the Tax Tribunal after December 31, 2006. In general, MCL 205.735a permits owners of property classified as commercial or other business use to bypass the board of review and appeal directly to the Tax Tribunal. See
Subsection 3 of § 27a relates to transfers of ownership, which is not pertinent here.
Section 34d has been amended twice since the periods pertinent to this case without change to the portions of § 34d discussed in this opinion. See