*1 Wikman v Novi 1982] WIKMAN v CITY OF NOVI 3, (Calendar 6). Argued Docket No. 62843. December No. De 2, July cided 1982. Wikman, Wikman, Mary Jack L. S. and other owners of along City brought against Taft Road in the of Novi an action treasurer, City seeking injunctive of Novi and its relief paving part from a assessment for of Taft Road. The Court, Beer, J., granted Oakland Circuit judg- William John plaintiffs, finding ment for the that their received no improvement benefit from the that was not received public per higher and that the $10 assessment of foot was than Appeals, Holbrook, the benefits received. The Court of D. E. P.J., Marutiak, Kelly JJ., unpublished and M. J. in an opinion per curiam, ground reversed on the the Tax appeals Tribunal has exclusive over from assessments, and remanded to the Tax Tribunal with the statutory 30-day filing direction to waive the appeal time for an (Docket plaintiffs’ and to hear the merits of the case No. 77- 1278). parties appeal. opinion by Coleman, In joined an Chief Justice Justices Williams, Fitzgerald, Ryan, Moody, Supreme Court held: The Tax challenges Tribunal has exclusive over governmental levy against unit’s _of [1, 12, [2, [10] [8] [6] [5-8] [4] [3] [12] [14] [11] 71 Am 7, 70 Am Jur 71 Am Jur 70 Am Jur 70 Am Jur 72 Am Jur 2 Am Jur 70 Am Jur 70 Am Jur 2 Am Jur Am Jur 13] 2 Am Jur Jur 2 Am Jur 2d, 2d, Special 2d, Special 2d, Special 2d, 2d, 2d, Special 2d, 2d, Special 2d, 2d, Special References State and Local Taxation Administrative Law 589. State and Local Taxation 2d, Administrative Law State and Local Taxation 799. 2d, Administrative Law § 542. Administrative Law §§ or Local Assessments or Local Assessment 6.§ or Local Assessments 185. or Local Assessments or Local Assessments 154. or Local Assessments 123. for Points § §§ in Headnotes §§ §§ § 799, 20, 546. §§ 541, 550, 571, 579, §§ § § § 156, 21. 800. 158. 209. 580. 413 Mich realty espe- improvements public which property owners for bringing precluding such a realty, cially benefit the plaintiffs’ injunctive challenge claim for in a circuit court. *2 remove it from that exclusive case does not relief in this jurisdiction. designed agency quasi-judicial to Tax Tribunal is a 1. The may taxpayers provide obtain relief from forum in which a primary agency functions are to find facts decisions. Its adverse jurisdiction relating agencies within its decisions of and review provides property Tribunal Act that the tax law. The Tax to original proceedings jurisdiction and in is exclusive tribunal’s relating agency final decision of an to direct review of a for property under tax laws or assessments assessments redetermination of such tax. the refund or jurisdiction to of the tribunal is not limited review 2. The relative, general property agency taxes. The Tax to decisions expressly special assessments under the Act includes Tribunal against Special property which are levied tax laws. assessments public improvements plaintiffs property owners such as the realty according received are levied under to the benefits "property property laws. The term tax laws” used only to ad valorem taxes but act does not refer any property pursuant to the state’s includes taxes levied taxing power. pursuant municipal Special levied to a charter 3. a statute are not outside the and ordinance rather than state Legislature delegated has the tax laws where power levy municipal corporation. to the Thus word encompasses used in the Tax Tribunal Act both "laws” as municipal and charters and ordinances. statutes jurisdiction 4. The of the Tax Tribunal is more extensive previously by the State Tax tax matters than that exercised Legislature, granting Commission and the circuit courts. The tribunal, jurisdiction this to the did not create a new level another, review, only with broad- but substituted one forum for jurisdiction. clearly ened The Tax Tribunal Act evidences a legislative jurisdiction intention to divest the circuit courts of jurisdiction. over matters within the exclusive tribunal’s power injunctions, 5. The but is tribunal lacks the to issue writs, orders, empowered to one is issue or directives. Once issued, party prohibited seeking a in a not from enforcement may extraordinary circuit court. While there be an case which justifies equity jurisdiction the exercise in contravention of a statute, Legislature this is not such has a case. Where law, provided plain, adequate remedy a the constitu- at has Wikman v Novi authority impose tional limitations on other available reme- legal remedy proceeding The available in dies. this case is a Tribunal, ability before the Tax which has the presented. to resolve all claims plaintiffs jurisdiction by 6. The cannot invoke circuit court terms, asserting, challenged in constitutional assess- arbitrary ment is and without foundation. While the tribunal question possess cannot determine constitutional not does power unconstitutional, plaintiffs’ hold a statute challenge validity. claim in case not does act’s resolution of the claim involves factual determinations within the exclusive of the tribunal. prohibit 7. The does Act the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction timely brought over a matter in another forum, subsequently found to be within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, although period exclusive at the time of exercise days in excess of from the of a time final decision has elapsed’. plaintiffs challenge filed their to the period prescribed by the circuit court within the limitation city’s charter and assessment ordinance. The circuit acquired thereby personal jurisdiction court over the defen- dants, tolling period period of limitation. Because the did *3 expire during action, pendency not the of the the tribunal could jurisdiction, Appeals exercise and therefore the Court of did not remanding err in to the case the tribunal. Affirmed. Levin, joined Kavanagh, dissenting, Justice Justice would jurisdiction hold that the Tribunal does not have to review city’s levying special pursuant the decision assessments to the original jurisdic- home rule The act. tribunal has exclusive relating special tion over decisions assessments under ad laws, property levying valorem tax but not over decisions special act, Code, assessments under the home rule the Drain provisions conferring other authority or of laws law on local government public improvements of units to finance estab- lishing special levying special assessment districts and assess- ments. The circuit courts continue to have over challenging special ground actions on assessments the that the
subject property specially is not benefited. provides 1. The Tax Tribunal Act the tribunal has original jurisdiction exclusive and to review final decision of agency relating special property an assessments under tax "property laws. The term tax laws” thus modifies and limits "special act, language prior term assessments”. The of Court, Supreme decisions history of the of the Tax Mich 617 "property tax predecessors the term show and its levying providing and collection of for the laws laws” to mean property are property taxes state taxes. Ad valorem ad valorem administration, special taxes, while assess- subject to statewide local ordinances and not assessed under local levies ments are Legislature conferred administration. to statewide state, levying of but not authority to review the the tribunal on local, in the act to assessments The reference taxes. billing relating to the or collection decisions concerns property by a tax collector under when carried out assessments Thus, have property the tribunal does not tax laws. levying special local assessments under decisions to review ordinances, concerning levying special assess- and actions courts. in the circuit ments should be maintained authority levy city’s assessments chal- 2. The pursuant granted lenged to The General in this case was concerning prop- Property ad valorem or other laws Tax Act taxation, erty rule act. The was conferred the home but tribunal, charged although predecessors the admin- with supervision the turn of the of tax laws since istration and government century, supervise local units of did not assessments, only levying and reviewed assessments delegates levying property taxes. The to the ad valorem sought scope judicial to limit the Constitutional Convention agency provided a final for the review of the decisions of that, property out of concern other- administration of tax laws wise, provision general judicial for review administrative agency delay undue in the collection of decisions would cause taxes, resulting property financial embarrass- ad valorem with government. to local units of The amendment ment general provision specifically precluded judicial review of deci- Commission, predecessor, State Tax sions of the tribunal’s i.e., fixing property purposes, property the value of Legisla- levying ad valorem taxes. ture, agency designating the final for the tribunal as laws, meaning incorporated administration of comprehended by the term of the constitutional limitation and "property tax Tax Commission laws” the functions of the State *4 provisions and the had been statutes and of law which jurisdiction the to the of the The functions of commission. levying supervision of the commission did not include or review special city; provisions of of a assessment of a home-rule the authorizing special are not the home rule act a assessment meaning the Tax Tribunal Act tax laws within the Wikman v Novi establishing original jurisdiction the exclusive and of the Tax Tribunal. Legislature give jurisdic- 3. The intended to the Tax Tribunal formerly by predecessor, tion over matters heard its State Commission, appellate body. an Tax At the time enacted, property Tax Tribunal Act was a owner who wished to special ground special contest a assessment on the that no right benefit be an would conferred did not have the admin- commission, appeal istrative to the but had maintain an equity action in in a circuit court to set aside enjoin collection. Act, taxpayer Prior to the enactment of the Tribunal obtaining had means two relief from ad valorem appeal tax assessments. An filed administrative could be with commission, paid or the assessment could an be action seeking Although commenced in a circuit court a refund. both pursued, generally challenges asserting remedies could be im- proper valuation were made before the commission. The courts only exercised limited of ad review valorem assessments and any power had disavowed to set assessments. Legislature juris- The intended to divest the circuit courts of only previously brought diction over matters which could be courts, before or the commission not matters which could brought only Challenges prop- be in the courts. to ad valorem erty and, now, pursued could taxes be in either forum under Act, the Tax must made before the tribunal. However, challenges formerly assessments were not commission, jurisdiction heard and the exercised supplemental circuit courts was not alternative to an admin- appeal. judicial remedy only remedy istrative was the Legislature was effective. The did not intend to eliminate circuit court over matters which had no adminis- parallel. addition, trative In such an was intent not stated in unambiguous the Tax Tribunal inAct terms. holding 4. The Court’s that the Tax Tribunal has ground to review the on that no improvements signifi- benefits were conferred works enlargement cant scope substantive of the review merely change assessments. It does forum which enlarged scope provides review will occur. of review addi- opportunities objectors tional employ delaying tactics resulting with improvements increases in the cost of local potential inability municipalities because of the to sell improvements during pendency bonds for the cost of the litigation and additional construction and other costs. *5 413 Mich
Opinion op the Court — — — Circuit Court. Tax Tribunal Jurisdiction 1. Taxation sufficiently legislative intention to Act shows a The Tax Tribunal jurisdiction proceedings give Tribunal exclusive the Tax justify property tax laws to the conclusion that the under the prohibited jurisdiction as to matters of the circuit court is (Const jurisdiction the Tax within the exclusive Tribunal 1963, 6, 13; seq., 600.601; et art MCL 205.701 et MSA § 7.650[1] 27A.601). seq., Special — — — 2. Taxation Tax Jurisdiction Assess- Tribunal ments. original jurisdiction has exclusive and for The Tax Tribunal relating direct review of decisions assessments levied governments pursuant taxing power against by local to the public improvements proportion realty to the for benefits (MCL205.731; 7.650[31]). received MSA — — 3. Taxation Tax Words and Phrases. Tribunal "property tax laws” as in the Tax Tribunal Act The term used taxes, only property does not refer to ad valorem but includes property pursuant taxes such as assessments levied (MCL205.731; taxing power 7.650[31]). the state’s MSA Special Municipal — — — 4. Tax Taxation Tribunal Assessments Corporations. Special pursuant municipal assessments levied to a charter and ordinance rather than a state statute are levied under purposes tax laws for the of the Tax Tribunal Act where the Legislature delegated power levy has the assessments to (MCL municipal 205.731; corporation 7.650[31]). MSA Injunctions. — — — 5. Tax Taxation Tribunal Jurisdiction expressly grant The Tax Tribunal Act does not the Tax Tribunal power injunctions, power to issue and such will not be (MCL by implication 600.601; seq., extended 205.701 et 27A.601). seq., et 7.650[1] — — — 6. Tax Taxation Tribunal Jurisdiction Constitutional Law. power injunctions The fact that the Tax Tribunal lacks to issue necessarily deprive does not it of exclusive proceedings for direct review of a assessment under the formerly usually brought tax laws which were enjoin circuit court in an action to collection of the assessment; Legislature provided plain where the has Wikman v Novi adequate remedy illegally at law to recover taxes assessed and collected, authority it has the constitutional to limit the availa- (Const 1963, 13; bility art art of other remedies § § 27A.601). seq., seq., 205.701 et et 7.650[1] Injunctions. — — — 7. Taxation Jurisdiction prayer injunctive special property from A relief tax assess- ment the assertion of a claim in constitutional terms do not remove the matter from exclusive *6 by Tax Tribunal where the de novo review the Tax Tribunal property tax under the laws will sufficient resolve the by plaintiff property claims owners that the assessment is foundation, confiscatory, arbitrary, plain- and without and the challenged constitutionality any tiffs have not statute or (MCL applied by of the to be the Tax standards Tribunal seq.; seq.). 205.701 et MSA et 7.650[1] op — — — 8. Tax Tribunal Taxation Jurisdiction Limitation Actions. contesting property special by Plaintiff owners a city prohibited invoking jurisdic- are not fourth-class from by petition tion of the Tribunal Tax their failure to file a with 30-day provided by the Tax Tribunal within the time the Tax plaintiffs brought Tribunal Act where the an action in circuit injunctive days receipt court for relief within 30 of the bills; running period contested tax of limitations was acquired tolled when over the defendants was court, the circuit and therefore an order the Court of Appeals appeal remanding on from the circuit court the case to the Tax Tribunal for consideration on the merits was not (MCL seq.; seq.; erroneous 205.701 et MSA et GCR 7.650[1] 1963, 820.1[7]). Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J. — — —
9. Taxation Tax Tribunal Ad Valorem Taxes Jurisdiction Special — Assessments. original jurisdiction The Tax Tribunal has exclusive and over relating special decisions assessments under ad valorem laws, property levying tax but not over decisions assess- act, Code, ments under the home rule the Drain or other laws provisions conferring authority of law on local units of government public improvements establishing to ñnance levying special assessment districts and (MCL 117.3[g], 205.731, 205.753; 5.2073[g], 7.650[31], MSA 7.650[53j). 413 — — — 10. Ad Valorem Taxation Tax Tribunal Jurisdiction Special — — Taxes Words and Phrases. Assessments "property Act The term in the Tax Tribunal tax laws” as used providing levying collection of ad means laws for the taxes, property subject to state- valorem taxes which are state administration; wide and limits the term the term modiñes relating "special to the which refer to decisions assessments” billing carried out or collection of assessments when laws; property it does not collector under refer to ordinances and not local levies assessed under local administration, and, thus, the Tax Tribu- statewide levying nal does not have to review decisions ordinances; actions for such assessments under local (MCL review should be maintained in the circuit courts 205.731, 205.753; 7.650[31],7.650[53j). Special — — — 11. Home Taxation Rule Act Tax Tribunal Act Assessments. provisions of the home rule act which authorize a home-rule city levy special assessments are not tax laws (MCL meaning 117.3[g], within the of the Tax Tribunal Act 205.731, 205.753; 5.2073[g],7.650[31],7.650[53]). — — 12. Taxation Jurisdiction. delegates adopt- to the Constitutional Convention of ing provision limiting any review of decisions of ñnal *7 agency -laws, for the administration of had in agency mind the State Tax Commission as the ñnal and the "property functions; Legisla- term tax laws” refers to its the ture, subsequently designating in the Tax Tribunal as the ñnal agency, incorporated meaning underlying the the constitutional provision, comprehending by "property the term tax laws” as formerly performed used in the Tax Tribunal Act the functions by appellate body the commission as an and the and statutes provisions of law which had been to the commission’s (Const 1963, jurisdiction §28; 205.731, 205.753[1]; art MCL 7.650[31],7.650[53][lj). MSA — — — 13. Tax Taxation Tribunal Jurisdiction Circuit Court. Legislature, establishing jurisdiction the of the Tax Tribu- nal, intended jurisdiction to divest the circuit courts of their only formerly brought over those matters which could also be ' Commission, before the State Tax not matters which could (Const brought only 6, 13; in the circuit courts art § 205.731, 27A.601). 7.650[31], Wikman v Novi op Opinion the Court — — — 14. Taxation Tax Courts Jurisdiction. creating Legislature, prop- the Tax Tribunal to hear all appeals, erty duplicative intended to and eliminate jurisdiction by transferring ineffectual the circuit court respect by the court the tribunal functions exercised with taxes; it did not intend to eliminate Court’s challenge assessment, jurisdiction to hear a to a where judicial remedy was effective had no and administrative (MCL 205.741; parallel 7.650[41j). Draugelis, (by Scully & Ashton Edward Drau- Pollard) gelis plaintiffs. and Michael for
Lampert, (by Levitt, Fried & PC. David M. Fried Levitt), Gary E. for defendants. preface Opinion, a C.J. As this an Coleman, sequential history appropriate. abbreviated An is opinion initially filed was addressed to the issues argued by parties.1 proceeded briefed and All by accepting rulings the consistent challenges Appeals Tribunal to the Court of governmental assessments levied a public improvements relating prop unit for to real erty jurisdiction within are of the Tax Tribu key nal. The issue was whether the claim for injunctive relief on this set of can facts remove jurisdiction. case from the tribunal’s exclusive opinion upon Now an been has filed which turns question argued par- a neither briefed nor ties. It concludes that the Tax Tribunal has no jurisdiction municipal over granting appeal, 1 In the order leave to this Court directed the
following issues to be addressed: (1) jurisdiction complaint whether the circuit court has of a for injunctive governmental relief from levied light provision original unit exclusive and Tribunal, the Tax (2) 30-day filing requirement jurisdictional, whether the (3) whether, case, plaintiffs under the com- facts have plied requirements necessary with the to invoke the *8 (1979). Novi, the Tax Tribunal. Wikman v Mich 413 Mich op Opinion the Court concerned, question such as there is no herein so colleague removal. It is opinion my ” Tax words "ad valorem must be read into the the words preceding Tribunal jurisdictional statute Otherwise, "special the words must assessments”. acts be read as the ministerial referring only to the collection involved in assessments. Legislature Essentially, argument is made a mistake. structure, purposes opinion
For this will ad- argued dress both the issues as briefed colleague. those raised We hold that by my seq.; MCL 205.701 et Act, 7.650(1) seq., grants et the Tax Tribunal exclusive proceeding seeking over direct governmental review of the unit’s decision con- cerning public improve- for a ment.
I
The Tax Tribunal Act
a is
culmination
of nu-
attempts
merous
Legislature
to secure the
prompt and fair
disputes concerning
resolution of
government
collection
revenues. The effi-
cient
resolution of such disputes
important
both the taxpayer
v
government.
and the
In
Eddy
Lee
Twp,
129-130;
(1888),
concerned, government than the should be em- *9 Wikman v Novi Opinion the of Court in necessary barrassed defray the of collection revenues to expenditures. its " upon impossi- 'Courts have frequently remarked the government calculating bility any certainty of the with revenues, if upon its the of collection taxes was every tax-payer to be arrested in in which a instance prima tax collector could make out a facie technical collection, arresting for justly case such and it is said to govern- be much let to pay better to the individual the and, upon him, ment if demands makes he part illegal, considers them in refunding in for apply whole or money, interest with afterwards.’ Coo- (2d ed), ley, p Taxation 762. jurist "This same learned remarks that— " 'So serious have been the embarrassments an improvident of employment injunction, the writ of and process, legislature other obstructive has in it necessary some cases deemed to interpose and forbid injunction, replevin, specified the issue of or other writs, tendency which would be to embarrass ” collections.’ significant public interest underlying collection of government revenues resulted upon limitations a taxpayer’s ability to contest tax assessments and obtain of general refunds Similar, revenue taxes. although possibly less com- pelling, imposed considerations limitations on a landowner’s ability challenge a local assessment for a public improvement.
In attempts
remove some
these limitations
provide
and
a forum in
aggrieved
which
taxpayers
relief,
could obtain
Legislature
statu-
created
procedures
tory
for
taxpayers
utilize in contest-
ing
legality of their
provided
taxes. Statutes
a
taxpayer
appeal
could
to the State Tax
Commission,
211.152;
7.210,
see MCL
MSA
or pay
under
protest
bring
an action
refund,
211.53;
circuit
court
see MCL
Mich
Opinion
the Court
concerning
Challenges
7.97.2
different standards.
governed by
were
one could
7.97,3 provided
pay
sue for a refund
protest
under
However,
way
the most common
circuit court.
enjoin
was to sue to
special assessment
contest a
Rapids, see Brill v Grand
it,
collection
(1970).4
NW2d 832
remedies
these available
proliferation
shopping
created
of forum
increased
problems
*10
These
decisions.5
the
of inconsistent
possibility
2
relief,
injunction
stay
an
the collection and
A third avenue of
211.114;
tax,
prohibited by
of a
was
MCL
MSA 7.168.
assessment
However,
always
this
has not
been construed
an absolute
statute
304, 316;
Dearborn,
City
51
Haggerty
Mich
prohibition,
NW2d 290
v
332
see
of
(1952).
3
292;
being
211.53;
7.97
1976 PA
MCL
MSA
Prior to
amended
provided:
assessments,
may
special
any
"Any person
pay the
or
or
one
taxes
assessments,
any parcel
descrip-
special
the
on
or
of
several taxes or
land,
thereof,
any
or
and the treasurer
tion of
on
undivided share
receipt
any portion
person may protest
of
in ink
of the
shall note across the face
taxes or
any
the
unpaid.
special
remaining
A
paid
days
60
tax or
is
within
of such
which
personal
property,
payment,
on
or real
to the trea-
whether levied
surer,
him,
writing, signed
specifying
grounds
protest,
in
of the
the
protest
of
on
roll.
and the treasurer shall minute the fact
the
the tax
person may,
days
protest,
township
The
30
such
sue the
within
amount
after
paid,
recover,
city
or
assessment is shown to be
if the tax
for
or
illegal
protest.”
in
for
reason shown
provision
constitutionality
of this
as it relates to
assess-
Flint,
questioned
483;
ments
in Knott
363
II case, The facts the instant except 7.650(21) 205.721; part: provides MCL which, quasi-judicial agency “The tax tribunal created and is a purposes only, department treasury.” for administrative is in the 7.650(22) part: provides "(1) The members the tribunal shall be citizens of United States, state, attorneys residents of which at least shall be practice engaged admitted to in this state shall have been for at years preceding immediately appointment gov- least ernment, corporate, in active private practice dealing or with federal and state- matters, including tax, discharge local or in the of a judicial office; quasi-judicial at least 1 shall abe certified assessor *11 holding highest granted by level of certification the state assessors board; professional appraiser holding at least 1 shall be a real estate a recognized indicating competence certification of valuation complex producing type income and residential of sub- ject property taxation, having required with a certification a review sample appraisals, years experience of at least 1 shall appraiser; of and an and public experi- years’ be a certified accountant with 5 ence in state-local tax matters. Not more than members shall professional of discipline. members who appointees same Additional assessors, attorneys, professional are not certified real estate appraisers, public or certified years’ shall accountants have at least 5 experience in state or local tax matters. "(2) Each member shall take and subscribe the constitutional oath entering discharge of officebefore on the of his duties. “(3) to, personally Each member shall devote his entire time and perform or of, engage the duties his officeand shall not in other business professional activity for remuneration.” 413 Mich Opinion of Court plaintiffs whether issue of
substantive improvement, are from the public benefited 1976, of 26, City the Council April dispute. On confirming a resolution passed of Novi Taft portion of a of paving rolls for the for the claim the bills Road. Plaintiffs 14, on 1976. On May were mailed 1976, properties abut- plaintiffs, owners June Road, in circuit Taft filed suit ting portion claiming relief and seeking injunctive court arbitrary in an determined the assessments were requested the manner. Plaintiffs inequitable and enjoin during collection preliminarily court case, their determine pendency benefited, to adjudge properties especially were not liens any null and void with the assessments grant relief discharged, any other thereof just equitable. the court determined After preliminary injunction. court issued a properties found that hearing, the court the improve- no additional benefit from received general public ment and that not received by higher the assessments were than benefits The court the assessments void received. declared permanently enjoined collection them. Court of reversed and remanded the case Appeals to the Tax Tribunal.
Ill question our is to Because first task resolve statutory jurisdiction, we look to (effective provisions July of this relatively new act 1974). 7.650(31) provides: *12 Wikman v Novi Opinion op the Court original "The tribunal’s exclusive and shall be: "(a) proceeding decision, A for direct review of a final determination, finding, ruling, relating or agency order of an assessment, valuation, rates, special assess-
ments, allocation, equalization, under laws. "(b) proceeding A for refund or redetermination of a added.)
tax under the (Emphasis laws.”
A "proceeding” is defined as an "appeal” 7.650(3). MCL The tribunal’s juris- diction is based either on the subject matter of the proceeding (e.g., a direct review of a final decision of an agency relating special assessments under laws) property tax or the type requested relief (i.e., a refund or redetermination of a tax under laws). the property tax In case, the instant jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal governed by the first plaintiffs subsection since are seeking to en- join permanently the collection of special assess- ment rather than to obtain a refund of a tax.8
Although neither issue, party raises my colleague’s opinion concludes that these municipal special assessments cannot be within the jurisdic- tion of the Tax Tribunal. disagree. We
A
Whether
the jurisdiction
of the Tax Tribunal
includes
is an issue of statu-
tory construction. The
primary
fundamental
rule of statutory
construction
is that
is the
court’s duty to ascertain the Legislature’s purpose
7.650(31)(b)
205.731(b);
proceed
is not
involved
this
ing. It
mentioning
refers to
taxes without
assessments.
In
instances,
many
such a
including
reference would be construed as
taxes
assessments;
but not
see Lake Shore & M S R
vCo
Rapids,
(1894).
Grand
102 Mich
tion, the court (1979). questions, reviewing such In 283 in order of the statute language considers first Kala- Legislature, the intention to ascertain Kalamazoo Public Ass’n v Education City mazoo (1979). Schools, 454 579; 281 NW2d 406 Mich be considered should of the statute Every word or surplusage treated as word should be and no v Gen- Baker all possible, if at nugatory rendered 639; 297 387 Corp, 409 NW2d eral Motors 455; 280 Levenburg, 406 Mich State v (1980), (1979). NW2d language of the statute
Focusing on the above, we conclude the rules mentioned applying that the Tax Tribu- intended Legislature case. over this jurisdiction nal exercise B 7.650(31) the Tax 205.731; grants MSA MCL challenging over proceedings Tribunal In the assessments. both assessments taxation, denotes the word "assessment” context of the share of the tax the determination De- Mayor v Williams paid taxpayer, each (1853). troit, purpose For the 2 Mich ad taxes, on the valorem or taxes based collecting means value of the word "assessment” property, for tax the determination of the value of MCL MSA 7.10. purposes, 7.650(31)(a) 205.731(a); expressly also MCL MSA decisions grants the Tax over as- These relating special assessments. deci- from the assessment sessments are different are Special sions discussed above. assessments determining for the value special procedures "special for The words purposes. v Wikman Novi op Opinion the Court to pecuniary assessments” refer exactions made government special purpose local according to bene- improvement, apportioned General, see In re Petition Auditor received; fits Weil, (1924), Detroit v 226 Mich 197 NW 593, 599; (1914), 180 Mich MCL NW 5.3536(l)(e). 211.761(e); impositions case clearly special instant are 205.731(a); term is used 7.650(31)(a).
C Although agrees these everyone pecuniary assessments, exactions are a difference of *14 opinion has over arisen whether these special assessments are ones "under tax property laws” as 7.650(31). that term is used in MCL Justice that opinion Levin’s reasons the term ad valorem tax must refer to property only laws 1963, 6, taxes property because Const art 28 uses § to ad valorem taxes the same term in reference and because such a is with construction consistent past Therefore, practices. opinion concludes phrase that limits the tribunal’s to reviewing the ministerial acts involved in collect- valo- ing special ad pursuant assessments to the rem tax law. agree
We phrase "under tax property laws” modifies the words "special assessments”. However, it does not special exclude these local assessments for public improvements from the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Rather, phrase distin- guishes special between assessments involved in this case special and other not assessments levied under property laws. recognize
We significant differences exist special between assessments and other forms Mich 617 413 634 Opinion op the Court did not fact, Act if the Tax Tribunal In taxation.9 assessments, agree we would mention are not within assessments However, the jurisdiction the tribunal.10 It also general to taxes. not limited tribunal is under assessments includes expressly and the Special laws. con- mutually exclusive tax laws are cepts. assessments, for a like this one
Most pursuant levied are public improvement, Detroit, 8 Mich Woodbridge v In taxing power. case, (1860), 274, paving road another Court stated: like the public improvements, purely local "Taxes assessments, us, are generally called one more before constitution, necessary it nor is
not mentioned
give
legislature power over them.
they should be
taxes, like all
impose and collect such
power
The
other
tion,
in the constitu-
legislative powers not mentioned
plenary, and in the exercise of
is
only.”
legislative discretion
Smith,
See, also, Weil,
supra, Roberts v
115 Mich
Detroit, Motz v
(1897),
5, 8;
72 NW
(1869), Williams,
566,
supra,
McQuillin,
(3d
38.01,
ed),
Corporations
p
Municipal
§
(4th ed),
Special
107.
p
on Taxation
Cooley
§
as a
assessments of this
have been described
type
*15
taxation, Weil,
2
supra,
599.
peculiar
species
of
(3d ed),
on Taxation
Cooley
p 1153.11
9
Farms,
Dep’t
Agriculture
See
Inc Director of
Dukesherer
v
(After
(1979),
Knott,
Remand),
1;
supra.
405 Mich
In contrast
to these
assessments which
taxing power,
are levied under
some
clearly
property
assessments are
not related to
taxes. Such
assessments
are
exacted
through
police power
part
the state’s
government’s
protect society’s
efforts to
health and
supra,
Motz,
welfare;
103.4;
see
MCL
MSA 5.1823.
may
Also,
be collected
con-
regulatory program
defray
nection with a
regulation,
Farms,
cost of such
see Dukesherer
Inc
(After
Agriculture
Remand),
Dep’t
v Director of
(1979).
405 Mich
However, assessments levied special to improvements realty public for owners property special their are property benefit especially which for the laws property under assessments Tribunal Act. of the Tax purposes
D
public improve
for
These
taxation,
ments,
are not outside the
form of
a
are levied
simply
they
tax laws
because
a
charter
and ordinance
municipal
to
pursuant
to
power
levy
a
statute. The
rather
than
state
a
public improvements
special assessments
sovereign legislative power.
Legis
Accordingly,
levy
the inherent
to
such
power
lature has
4,
1,
assessments,
1963,
any
Const
art
§
limitations,
see Wood
constitutional
applicable
Williams,
2d,
bridge,
supra,
281,
Jur
supra,
Am
Assessments,
845-846. The
pp
or Local
Special
§
delegate
such
Legislature
ability
also has the
v
authorities,
Turner
appropriate
to the
powers
Detroit,
(1895).
104 Mich
However, delegation, a the absence such power not have municipality levy does Assessments, assessments, Special or Local Thus, any supra, p 847. § municipal corporation levied a is levied under delegated by Legislature. law from authority Therefore, under such assessments are levied Legislature has though tax laws even power by delegating chosen to its to a exercise municipal authority. 5.2103, provisions of MCL also
support They provide this conclusion. that after approval filing, charter shall "there- city Wikman v Novi Opinion of the Court upon become law”. The assessments the instant pursuant were case levied home-rule city’s contexts, In Legislature’s chárter. other use of *17 municipal charters, the word "law” has included Sykes Creek, v Battle 660, 663; see 288 Mich 286 Detroit, Hudson Motor Car Co v (1939), 117 NW 282 (1937).15 69, 78; 275 NW Therefore, Mich 770 we conclude that "laws” in 205.731; word MCL 7.650(31) MSA encompasses both statutes and mu nicipal charters and ordinances. supported
This construction is multitude special of references assessments The Gen- eral Act and the Property chapter on taxa- tion.16 Because these provisions do not authorize assessments, any must they refer to assessments levied under other laws. We conclude refer to they pursu- levied statutes, ant to charters municipal and ordinances.
E
This construction is also supported by
Legis
lature’s decision not to
205.731;
amend MCL
MSA
7.650(31) after
the courts have held that
the Tax
Tribunal has jurisdiction
over
assessments.
Since
act,
the initial
passage
the Tax Tribu
nal
the Courts have
consistently held
Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction
over special assess
Saginaw Twp,
ments; see Emerick v
104 Mich App
Rogoski Muskegon,
243; 304
v
(1981),
536
NW2d
15
Gladstone,
County
But cf. Delta
50;
v
305
8
Mich
NW2d 908
(1943),
Bay City,
and Fennell v Common
Council
638
op
Opinion
the Court
(1980), Ander-
786;
Furthermore, has amended Legislature chang- the earlier decisions without twice since act see 1978 PA provision, ing jurisdictional is an acquiescence 437. This 1980 PA silence agreed with the Legislature indication Am- Magreta v accuracy interpretations, of these (On Rehearing), Co 380 Mich bassador Steel *18 Estate, re (1968), Clayton In 343 473 158 NW2d (1955). NW2d source, Considering this and the acquiescence public special and effects of assessments nature assess- contrasting them with improvements, we pursuant police power, to the ments made herein are special conclude purposes for the ones under tax laws property 7.650(31). of MCL MSA
F or from Although arguments we have no briefs issue, opinion on parties this Justice Levin’s tax laws” must "property concludes the term ad valorem to because property refer taxes only 28,17 1963, 6, Const art and another section § 6, provides part: Const art in § fraud, wrong adoption "In the absence of error of law or agency principles, provided appeal may any any to final no be taken court from any property from deci- for the administration of tax laws relating sion to valuation or allocation.” v Wikman Novi Opinion op the Court 205.753(1); Act, Tax Tribunal 7.650(53X1),18 application special which have no to phrase. agree assessments, use that While we with colleague that our the noted sections have no application special nonapplica- assessments, to phrase tion does not arise from the use of. the "property laws”, tax but rather from the context provisions appeals of its use. Both to relate valuation and allocation decisions from "final provided agency for the administration tax laws”. Since valuation and allocation are not special cases, issues there was no delegates need for the Constitutional Con- phrase "property vention consider whether the tax laws” included excluded assess- Thus, the ments. Constitutional is Record silent on phrase "property whether tax laws” includes Record, assessments. Official Constitu- pp tional Convention 3240-3243.
The silence of the Constitutional Convention certainly provides Record no indication that meaning "property tax laws” excludes argument assessments. The that because valuation and allocation are said to be under laws, tax property assessments are not under the analogous arguing laws, because Great Danes and are Dachshunds said to dogs, dog. Therefore, Pekinese is not a we see "property no relevance of the use of laws” 205.753(1); the 1963 or MCL Constitution 7.650(53X1) jurisdictional its use section. *19 18 205.753(1); 7.650(53)(1) provides: MCL MSA "Subject to section 28 of 6 of article the constitution of pursuant section of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of amended, being Michigan Laws, Compiled section 24.302 of the and in rules, general appeal accordance with court an from the tribunal’s right appeals. purposes decision shall be constitutional to the court of of For provision, agency the tribunal is the final for the property administration of tax laws.” Mich 617 op Opinion the Court
Hence, concluding, as our see no basis for we does, Legislature that when the wrote brother * * * under "special referring only to the ministerial acts it laws” was If of assessments. the collection involved intention, expect, would at one such was its phrase have used the least, would very * * * under ad valorem prop- "special assessments interpretation our brother’s Since erty laws”. undisputed meaning change the drastically would phrase the use of a assessments” "special of clear, is far less we meaning context whose it. decline follow interpretation more effect
A reasonable phrase "under "special on assessments” laws”, not drastically which would so property tax meaning, phrase would be that change its are special assessments under distinguishes taxing and that relate real power of special from other assessments. types
G Also, accept cannot the contention that we include jurisdiction Tax Tribunal does predecessors its did special assessments because not review assessments. statutes creat- ing defining the functions the Board Commissioners,19 Depart- State Tax the State Tax do not ment20 and State Commission21 In address or mention assessments. con- 7.650(31) trast, 205.731; expressly MCL grants the tribunal over assess- ments. The conclusion that the Tax Tribunal’s is more extensive than that of seq.; seq. 154; MCL 211.146 et MSA 7.204 et 1899 PA 155; 209.152;
20 1925 PA MCL MSA 7.621. PA 7.631. *20 v Wikman Novi Opinion of the Court supported State Commission is also 7.650(41) 205.741; of MCL MSA provisions 205.771-205.773; 7.650(71)-7.650(73). MCL provisions implement These the tribunal’s broad- jurisdiction proceedings based over previously con- ducted before both the State Tax Commission and the circuit court. Because the jurisdic- tribunal has court, tion over matters heard in formerly circuit its jurisdiction is not limited to matters heard the State Tax reasoning par- Commission. This is ticularly applicable special assessments, to because of the. actions many challenging special assess- ments were heard in court.22 circuit
We
recognize
Legislature’s
decision to
include
assessments within the jurisdiction
of the Tax
is
one which changes past
However,
practices.
in the absence of any constitu-
tional objection,
this is not a valid reason to frus-
trate the expressed intention
Legislature.
The
experiment
decision whether
to
with new
procedures
legislative
is a
one. The
Court’s role
effectuate,
to
if possible,
legislative
decision.
Comm,
County
The decision in Emmet
v State Tax
397 Mich
(1976),
sessments within
Since
or unreasonable.
nal
is not unwarranted
Legislature
century,
has
before the turn of the
been
supervising special assessments,
involved
Currently, a
39,
The decision special to an adminis- from assessments decisions agency circuit court is consis- trative instead the The contexts. tent with similar actions other review, see not create a new level of action did supra, only County, one Emmet but substituted jurisdiction. for another broadened its forum Ideally, will foster standardiza- this consolidation levying special equality tion and assess- ments. Legislature
In contrast to the rational basis the channeling special appeals from demonstrated for argument Tribunal, assessments to the Tax Legislature only unpersuasive that intended special relating decisions collection of as- tax law within sessments under the ad valorem the be jurisdiction of the tribunal. Legislature provide
First, if intended jurisdiction, clearly have such limited expressed could 205.731; MSA intention. MCL 7.650(31) jurisdic- have drafted to limit could been * * * * * * relating tion to "decisions col- * * * under lection of assessments general property tax act”. suggested
Second, of the act construction shopping and increase the could result possibility in forum similar inconsistent decisions fn See 16. Wikman v Novi Opinion of the Court Under interpretation, assessments col- cases. by separate lected bills within the would of the Tax Tribunal while those col- with regular lected tax roll No would be. justification for this difference has been advanced. argument appears to elevate form over sub- Also, assuming stance. two forums would not resolve the always problem way, same the same this construction could lead into municipality forum shopping determining via whether to collect on regular assessments their or rolls otherwise. One of the underlying main reasons creation the Tax Tribunal was to reduce eliminate forum shopping and the possibility inconsistent decisions. claim tribunal’s over to ad valorem only extends
taxes in a inaccurately described statute as "spe- cial unpersuasive. assessments” is equally No stat- ute been has which cited inaccurately describes an ad valorem as a assessment. The Drain *22 Code, MCL seq.; 280.1 et et seq., MSA 11.1001 does not incorrectly "special use the term assessment”. Rather, revenues, whether otherwise, are entitled drain "tax” or "taxes”.24 5.2770(51) seq.; et MCL 41.721 seq., et MSA does not describe an ad valorem inaccurately aas assessment, but authorizes raising special assessments, 41.725; revenue both MCL 5.2770(55), MSA and by pledging the full faith and credit township, 41.735; MCL MSA 5.2770(65), which could lead to payment from other revenues. Neither 333.20346; does MCL MSA 280.51; 11.1051, 280.130; 11.1130, See MSA MCL MCL MSA MCL 11.1135, 280.135; 11.1151, 280.151; 280.161; MSA MCL MSA MCL 11.1161, 280.197; 11.1197, MSA 280.198; MCL MSA MCL MSA 11.1198, 280.244; 11.1244, 280.245; 11.1245, MCL MSA MCL MSA 280.263; 11.1263, 280.265-280.275; MCL MCL MSA 11.1265- 280.262; 11.1262, 11.1275. MCL See MCL MSA 11.1279. Opinion of the Court
14.15(20346) "special the term inaccurately use of am- It cost paying authorizes assessments”. funds, ser- fees for from available bulance service 1979-1980, vice, In OAG special assessments. 13, 1980), Attorney p (May No could that the cost of such service opined General no since imposed as a Thus, any levy benefited. especially was must be as purpose exacted upon property I this an ad valorem tax. interpret opinion its defray should indicating municipality taxes), (general funds see costs from available 14.15(20346X1), in- 333.20346(1); MSA rather than (2) the reference subsection dicating ad valorem taxes. meant special assessments been inaccu- no statute has cited which Since ad valorem tax as a rately describes an assessment, to con- upon is no basis which there "special clude that the words assessment” Act refer to such non-existent only Tax Tribunal statutes.
IV A an of the Tax Tribu- Although understanding nal’s the resolution of necessary to case, juris- the more concern is the immediate diction proceedings. of the circuit court over these The jurisdiction court is governed circuit 6, 13, Const art which provides: § original jurisdiction court "The circuit shall have prohibited by law; appellate all matters not except from all inferior wise as other- courts tribunals issue, provided law; power hear deter- *23 writs; prerogative supervisory mine and and remedial general control inferior courts and tribunals over Wikman v Novi Opinion of the Court within respective jurisdictions their in accordance with supreme court; rules of the jurisdiction of other provided cases and court.” supreme matters as rules of the 600.601; MCL MSA 27A.601 provides: "Circuit power jurisdiction courts have the "(1) possessed by law, courts of record at the common as altered the constitution and laws of this state and court, the rules supreme "(2) possessed by judges courts and in chancery in England 1, 1847, on March as altered the constitu- tion and laws of this state and supreme the rules of the court, and
"(3) prescribed by rule of supreme court.” Historically, the circuit courts exercised jurisdic- tion over actions enjoin collection of special assessments. The courts continue to exercise this jurisdiction except as prohibited by the laws of this state. The divestiture of jurisdiction from the cir- cuit court is an extreme undertaking. Statutes so doing are to be strictly construed. Divestiture cannot be accomplished except under clear Leo v láw, mandate of the Industries, Atlas Inc, (1963), NW2d 926 Reeder, Crane v (1874). 28 Mich 532-533 Even under these strict construction, rules of the Tax Tribunal Act clearly legisla- evidences a tive intention that the circuit court not have juris- diction over matters within the tribunal’s exclu- jurisdiction. sive The tribunal’s over proceedings under the property tax laws is "exclu- sive”, meaning to the others, exclusion of Black’s (4th ed), Dictionary p Law 673. 7.650(41) provides: person legal
"A which, entity immediately before
646
B exercising quasi- agency Generally speaking, an judicial power undertake the determina- does not questions possess tion of constitutional brought in circuit court also contend that the action Plaintiffs "appeal” seeking injunctive under MCL relief was not an and other 7.650(3)(e) plaintiffs’ 205.703(e); original Although action. but an word, complaints appeals were not in the narrow sense 7.650(3)(e), 205.703(e); "appeal” was not intended in MCL word body judicial taken another of an action to mean review judicial body. tribunal is the is used in the sense that The word complaints, aggrieved taxpayers their see must file forum in which all (1921), 153; Judge, 215 Mich 183 NW Newell v Kalamazoo Circuit (1958). Orleans, 305, 312; 103 So 2d Slicho v New 235 La v Novi Wikman op Opinion the Court v unconstitutional, Dation power to hold statutes (1946). Co, Ford Motor NW2d 252 However, the constitutional claims this case do Rather, the validity plain- not involve of a statute. assertion, an tiffs’ claim is merely constitutional terms, arbitrary assessment was without foundation. requires law see Dix- according received, to the
made benefits Detroit, Ferndale v Taxpayers’ Ass’n 258 Mich *25 (1932). 390, 395; 242 732 NW Plaintiffs’ claim is these assessments were not made according as required to benefits received law. The resolution of this claim involves many fact The membership determinations. of the Tax experi Tribunal is structured to it with provide in resolving ence these fact issues. The tribunal’s de novo gives opportunity review26 to rectify any errors the agency’s determination. This review is to sufficient resolve any the claims plaintiffs. raised Since the raised by issues plaintiffs not do involve the validity the tribu statute, nal’s action or a they do not remove this proceeding from the exclusive Tax Tribunal.
C
agree
We
with plaintiffs’
contention
Tax Tribunal
lacks the power to
an injunc-
issue
tion. The
an
issuance of
is an
injunction
exercise
judicial
power. The
Legis-
constitution limits the
power
lature’s
judicial power
transfer
admin-
agencies,
3, 2,
istrative
John-
see Const
art
§
son v
Inc,
Kramer
Freight Lines,
Bros
357 Mich
254, 258;
(1959).
[26] See MCL 205.735(1); 7.650(35)(1). Mich 617 413
648
op
Opinion
the Court
Co,
Liability
Mutual
Michigan
supra,
Ford Motor
(1940),
237, 242;
Although injunctive
may
relief
be
available,
empowered
to issue
tribunal
orders,
directives”,
"writs,
see MCL
7.650(32),
nothing
the Tax
seeking equitable
from
relief
prohibits
Act
one
Edros,
decision,
Nied
supra,
a tribunal
see
enforce
Barbers,
& Cos
Journeymen
zialek v
Hairdressers
America,
International Union of
Local
metologists’
552, AFL,
Van
(1951),
296; 49
331 Mich
NW2d
Judge,
v
Circuit
Buren Public School Dist Wayne
(1975).
6, 14;
App
NW2d
indicating that
the constitution
Case law exists
places
Legislature’s power
some limitations on the
completely
equity jurisdiction
to divest the court
grant
injunction;
an
see
judicial power
Dearborn,
City
304; 51
Haggerty v
332 Mich
(1952). Thus,
an
there
may
NW2d 290
while
*26
the
extraordinary
justifies
which
exercise
case
statute,
in contravention
a
equity jurisdiction
has
Legislature
this
the
is not such a case. Where
law,
has
at
provided
plain, adequate
remedy
impose
the
limitations
authority
constitutional
remedies,
Twp,
v Lee
Eddy
on other
available
(1888).
legal
remedy
123;
Mich
Although exceptions purportedly statutes con- ferring exclusive on other jurisdiction administra- Wikman Novi v Opinion of the Court agencies tive and courts have been recognized by Court, County, supra, Michigan see Emmet Mutual, supra, plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary and permanent injunctions proceedings in these do take out of the them exclusive pursuant 205.731; tribunal to MCL Eggermont Clawson, 7.650(31), City v see 246; Corp Edros v App (1979); NW2d 574 Huron, Port 78 Mich App NW2d (1977).
D plaintiffs argue While further the circuit proper court forum this proceeding because Tribunal lacks jurisdiction actions, that, resolve class defendants state effect, the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide suits affecting an entire class. This suit proper is a example. The further resolution of the is not issue necessary to determination this case. tribunal’s exclusive all pro- includes ceedings for review of an agency’s decision under Allowing laws. such class actions to be brought the circuit court while prohibiting single suits over taxpayer would elevate form essence, substance. In and 74 prohibit §§41 circuit court from exercising jurisdiction these proceedings. However, plaintiffs can obtain Tax Tribunal sought same relief another name in the circuit court.
V
Upon reversing
circuit
judgment
court,
the Court of
case to
Appeals remanded the
the Tax
pursuant
to MCL
*27
617
413 Mich
650
Opinion of the Court
820.1(7).28
7.650(73)27
1963,
appeal,
On
and GCR
of Appeals
the Court
contend
defendants
the tribunal
this case because
remanding
erred
equitable matter.
"over this
lacked
7.650(35),
provision
205.735;
only
MCL
invoking
jurisdic-
establishing
procedures
tribunal, provides:
tion of the
shall be invoked
the tribunal
jurisdiction of
"The
interest, as
petition by
party
a
filing of a written
decision, rul-
days
30
after the final
petitioner, within
determination,
he
to review or
or order which
seeks
ing,
receipt of a
for a tax he
30
after the
bill
days
within
government
unit of
shall be
contest.
seeks
petition
on
respondent.
Service
named
respondent
mail.”
certified
shall
filing,
that a
within
timely
Defendants
claim
necessary
is
invoke
after the final decision
days
2d,
Tribunal, 2 Am Jur
of the Tax
Law,
328,
150-151.
word
pp
Administrative
§
"must”,
see
construed to mean
"shall” has been
10,
Dist No
Royal
v Dist Board of School
Sauder
413, 418;
Twp,
County,
271 Mich
Oak
Oakland
(1935).
applied
has
The Tax Tribunal
NW
similar
construction
of the statute
determine
limit
and
30-day
jurisdictional29
the matter is
the decision is
action as the
powers, in its discretion
"When matter is decided
"The
GCR
Court
appellate
remanded,
appealed,
820.1(7)
Appeals
court
provides:
7.650(73)
and on
and
the remand
may,
may
when,
at
such
provides:
a forum described
direct.”
any
after the effective date of this
terms
shall
time,
be to the tribunal
as it
in addition to its
deems
just:
section
for such
general
41 and
act,
"(7)
ought
judgment
any
any
have
Give
and
order which
make
made,
given
been
grant
make
other
further orders
such
relief,
may require.”
such
as the case
(Docket
Development
Twp,
C
29 L &
Co v Torch Lake
1 MTTR 91
20, 1975),
Associates,
May
No.
Ltd v Oakland
Lake Geneva
Wikman v Novi
*28
Opinion of the Court
respectful
construction of the statute is entitled to
Magreta, supra.
consideration,
argue
Defendants
205.773;
that MCL
MSA
7.650(73)
apply
applies only
does not
because it
cases heard in the circuit court or State Tax
Commission before the creation of the Tax Tribu-
appeal.
nal and remanded after
7.650(35)
Although
provides
205.735;
MCL
MSA
that the tribunal’s
shall be invoked
timely filing,
a
consequences
the statute does
state the
failing
timely petition.
to file a
It
any language prohibiting
does not contain
exercising jurisdiction
tribunal from
in cases filed
days
ruling
receipt
later than 30
after a final
or
prohibitive
a tax bill. It contains none of the
language normally present
statutory
limita-
respect,
tions.30 In this
MCL 205.735; MSA
7.650(35)
ambiguity.
is not free from
Although defendant’s
construction
of MCL
7.650(31) might
persuasive
205.731; MSA
if it
only
pronouncement
statutory
were the
issue,
on this
provisions
statutory
expressly
other
set forth
brought by taxpay-
different
on
limitations
actions
seeking
any
ers
relief. In contrast to the absence of
(Docket
County,
15, 1975),
May
MTTR 95
No.
Schimmel v
County
Board,
(Docket
Oakland
Tax Allocation
1 MTTR 61
No.
6,May
1975); see,
App
also,
Fenton,
City
Sisbarro v
90 Mich
(1979).
provided, court. circuit not court was filing in the circuit timely of the Tax jurisdiction to invoke the
sufficient
action,
circuit
However,
this
through
Tribunal.
MCL
over defendants.
jurisdiction
acquired
court
27A.5856,34
the stat-
provides
600.5856; MSA
jurisdiction
whenever
is tolled
of limitations
ute
Be-
acquired.35
was otherwise
over the defendant
tolled and did
limitations was
period
of
cause
suit,
of this
MCL
pendency
expire during
7.650(35)
pro-
not remove this
205.735;
did
the Tax Tribunal.
of
ceeding
from the
ordering that
did not err
Appeals
The Court of
pursu-
the Tax
this case be remanded to
820.1(7).
ant to GCR
costs,
question.
being
public
Affirmed. No
and Blair
Moody,
Fitzgerald,
Ryan,
Williams,
JJ.,
concurred with
Coleman,
C.J._
Jr.,
purpose
contesting
for the
of
or
shall be instituted or maintained
kind
enjoining
whether or not
assessment
shall be entitled
contesting
after he has received the benefits from
that
unless such suit or action shall be
after confirmation of the roll.”
assessments;
regardless
of such
the collection
completed
any
any public improvement
district,
in such district
no owner of real
located
purpose
any
for the
special
to commence
suit or action
any
enjoining the
such
or
collection
completion of
the substantial
assessed,
public improvement
portion
or
for which he is
such
(60)
sixty
days
commenced within
provides:
MSA 27A.5856
"The statutes of limitations are tolled when
"(1)
complaint
complaint
copy
is filed and a
of the summons
defendant,
are served on the
or when
"(2)
when,
acquired,
over the defendant is otherwise
"(3)
complaint
complaint
copy
is filed and a
of the summons
faith,
good
placed
for immediate
are
in the hands of an ofiicer
service,
longer than 90
but in this case the statute shall not be tolled
days thereafter.”
Elgammal
County
Dist Board
Intermediate School
See
v Macomb
(1978),
Education,
444;
App
Kiluma v
83 Mich
Addendum sequence clarify Coleman, C.J. In order to opinions, I invite the reader’s attention to the fact opinion the final of the Court was written in response to an initial dissent which raised new argued. entirely issue neither briefed nor An new during filed, dissent now is conference considera- majority tion, which blurs the references of the opinion arguments. and raises new Because long history City of this case and Romulus Trea- Wayne County Comm’r, v surer Drain we do not again opinions write to conform the two or state arguments matter, contra to new leave the but note, reader with this the intent of which is to understanding opinions enhance of the two which sight appear may "ships pass at first night”. (dissenting). question J.
Levin, is one of statutory construction under the Tax Tribunal Act original” juris- and is whether the "exclusive and encompasses diction of the Tax Tribunal the sub- ject matter of this action which was commenced in the circuit court.
We would hold that the Tax Tribunal does not jurisdiction. have A levied City authority of Novi on of the home-rule property cities act is not a decision made "under tax laws”.
I The Wikmans and others commenced this action against Novi and its treasurer circuit court to set aside and restrain collection of a assess- They proposed improve- ment. claimed that ment would confer no benefit on the as- 413 Mich Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. the benefit to other beyond sessed owners owners in Novi.1 *32 an the circuit advisory jury, After a trial with agreed with the Wikmans and the other court spe- The court found that there was no plaintiffs. special The declared cial benefit.2 were special public plaintiffs 1 The first contested the assessment They hearings by City held the Council. the Novi asserted specially property by would not the affected owners be benefited against proposed improvement entire spread that its cost should and be the city. 14, city plaintiffs by May The treasurer notified the letters dated special city that the council had confirmed the assessment on April 1976. The letters also stated the amount of the apportioned property assessment to the addressee owner and that the city be reflected in the 1976 tax bill. first installment would 9, 1976, plaintiffs The filed this action in circuit court on June reiterating that the objections public hearing. They the the raised at asked void, adjudged illegal assessment be and their .that liens, discharged property restraining any injunction and that an be entered all and collect the efforts assess assessment. defendants, treasurer, appeal Novi and its contend that an (see 134) brought days assessment must be within 30 from of confirmation fn Tribunal, the roll before the Tax and plaintiffs’ by that cause reached the Court of an adverse determination on the merits —in asserted error —not noticed defendants the until Appeals appeal by on the defendants from bringing appeal their wrong any 30-day the forum relief bars because the time limit has long ago expired. advisory jury paving The verdict of an was that the of Taft Road upon property plaintiffs did not confer additional benefit the of the upon general public and over above that conferred of Novi. judge following findings The circuit entered the of fact and conclu- sions of law: Findings "I. of Fact Road, lawsuit, improvements "1. That the to Taft of this widening portion road, road, paving included adding sides, the traveled eight-foot large drainage two shoulders and ditches on both straightening vertically horizontally and both and the road bed. improvements changed "2. That total these the character of this essentially through thoroughfare. rural road to that of a road or a improvements trees, "3. That the necessitated the removal of all growth shrubbery along both sides of said road. plaintiffs’ owners, abutting property "4. That the use of Taft Road (5%) approximated only percent against five when measured impact large. by public on the road and use the school district and the at "5. That the resident owners of Taft Road sustained some Novi v Wikman by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. was enjoined. jurisdictional void collection was not raised the circuit court. question Appeals The Court of concluded that matter within the exclusive of the Tax is the circuit jurisdic court without 3 The of the circuit judgment tion. court was va cated and the cause was remanded to the Tax Tribunal with direction4 that waive the expira- improvements detriment to their caused and those following: detriments included trees, number; approximately "A. Removal of 60 in all screening vegetation; "B. Removal of all privacy road; "C. Loss of sound barrier and from aesthetics; "D. Loss of traffic; Expected "E. increase in volume of speed improved "F. Increase of vehicular traffic on the surface of Taft Road. any plaintiffs "6. That beneñt received in this case was so consequence minimal as to be offset As a detriments. this court *33 plaintiffs improve- ñnds that received the no benefits from enjoyed public by ments to Taft large. over those Road and above the at
”11. of Law Conclusions improvements "1. That the road Taft Road between Ten Mile City and Grand River the any in of Novi not confer do beneSts abutting property on the owners over above the beneñts received n by public large. the at "2. city That the assessment roll numbers 32 the City (Emphasis sup- assessor of plied.) the Novi are invalid and void.” Although finding the of-'"no benefit” is not relevant in deciding Act, might the construction of the Tax Tribunal be plaintiffs’ deciding relevant in in See they claim an that can maintain action equity although jurisdiction' Tax is "exclusive”. part IX, below. Appeals The Court of said: "Our equities review of the record us convinces that the are on the plaintiffs; nonetheless, side of the may parties is it well-settled that waiver, stipulation otherwise, subject-matter confer or jurisdiction where it does not exist.” finding equities The plaintiffs” "that on are the side of might, again, plaintiffs’ deciding equitable be relevant in claim. See IX, part below. 820.1(7): This authority direction was rested on the of GCR "Rule 820. Appeals. Miscellaneous Relief in Obtainable Court of time, “.1 Appeals any Relief may, Obtainable. The Court of at 413 Opinion by Dissenting Levin, J. filing petition limit time 30-day tion of the .5 the Tax Tribunal
with Court of the decision of the This Court affirms Appeals.
A appeal this is presented by issue principal maintained action can be indeed whether this in the circuit court. equity have and the defendants plaintiffs Both Tax assumption on the Tribu- proceeded the Tax under Tribu- nal has exclusive ex- equitable may an action nal Act unless cepted. this action cannot be Court concludes that
This the Tax Tri- Assuming maintained in equity. inclined to bunal has we would be jurisdiction, below) (see ground IX agree part on failed plaintiffs and the other have Wikmans the Tax Tribunal appeal demonstrate that an remedy a substantively procedurally inadequate in the instant justifying equitable intervention cause. Court, remanding opinion Tribunal,
cause to the decides the seemingly question, the answer was assumed which general powers, addition to its on such terms as *34 in its discretion and just: it deems “(7) any judgment ought any to have Give and make order which given made, been grant orders and or and make such other and further relief, may require.” such as the case 7.650(35). 205.735; MCL MSA fn 134. See v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. and, opinion as stressed parties Court, briefed, of not whether the Tax Tribunal equitable has absent a basis inter- vention. This Court declares that the Tax Tribunal has "exclusive over this proceeding”6 challenging levied on the authority home-rule cities act. VIII,
For reasons stated part Court can- or appear decide properly juris- to decide question parties dictional on the concessions of the to this litigation. proper course would be to briefing further argument order before decid- or ing appearing question. to decide the
B The jurisdiction of the Tax limited to decisions made under tax laws”. The "property term "property appears tax laws” in three places Act, in the Tax Tribunal twice in 31 and once in § §53: 31 provides
—Section the Tax Tribunal has "exclusive original jurisdiction” of decisions "relating assessment, valuation, rates, assessments, allocation, equalization, or under property tax laws” proceedings for refund property or determination of "a tax under laws”.7 (Emphasis supplied.)_ 6 Ante, p 626. 7 "The original jurisdiction tribunal’s exclusive and be: shall "(a) proceeding decision, A finding, for direct review of a final ruling, determination, assessment, relating agency or order of an
valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, equalization, un- der tax laws. "(b) proceeding A for refund or redetermination of a tax under the 7.650(31). tax laws.” MCL "proceeding” 205.703(e); A appeal”, is defined as "an 7.650(3)(e). *35 413 Mich Opinion by Dissenting Levin, J. right of to appeal for an provides
—Section of subject provisions to the Appeals, of the Court that, 6, §28, and "for 1963, provides art Const Tax provision, the that constitutional of purposes” for the administra- agency the final is "[TJribunal supplied.) tax laws”.8 (Emphasis tion of dissenting opinion is in this expressed The view not have to jurisdiction Tax Tribunal does the levying assessment a decision review is levying a decision because tax "property under the laws”. not made tax describes term laws” limiting "property law which had been and contin- body statutory of Tax the State Commis- by ues to be administered sion: Legislature enacting purpose
—The of the appellate was to transfer Tax Tribunal Act to the of the State Tax Commission jurisdiction Tax Tribunal and eliminate the alternative part It of the remedy the circuit court. was legislative to transfer Tax Tribunal purpose had not for- subject of matter which been a matter of state supervision merly business of the Tax Commission. State expressed
—The legislative purpose is limits language Tax Tribunal Act. The act made Tax Tribunal’s to decisions laws”, "property subject under tax the laws 8 "(1) Subject 28 of of to section article of constitution pursuant of to section 102 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts Laws, amended, being Michigan Compiled as in accordance 24.302 section rules, general appeal from the tribunal’s with court an right purposes appeals. shall to the the for the decision constitutional administration 7.650(53)(1). court For provision, agency tribunal final 205.753(1); tax laws.” Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J. administration State Commission. Spe- are under cial assessments not levied The General Tax Act or Property provisions other laws state for the providing per- law on real and (the laws”), sonal property "property which are state supervision administrative Commission, the State Tax *36 but under separate legislation such as home-rule cities act and the authorizing Drain Code establishment and for the providing powers local of govern- units ment.9 Tax
—The Tribunal Act eliminates the circuit court remedy person where a had been able proceed either "the before state tax commission or the circuit seeking court”.10 to challenge Persons a special assessment had not levy theretofore been proceed able to either before the "state tax com- court”, mission the circuit but only circuit court.11
—The Tax Tribunal Act was not directed to problems which had arisen the establishment special assessment districts and in the levying assessments local governmental authori- ties which appeared to call for supervision at the state level of local governmental decisions public finance improvements by special assessment but rather was enacted because the State Tax Commission had ceased to an appropriate place lodge appellate administrative re- state ad valorem specting the tax, the dual remedy in the circuit court in property tax appeals had ceased to a serve useful purpose.12
9See fn ff. 10See fn 111.
11See fns 81 and 118.
12See fn 114. Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. sure, are, to be
—While legislation enabling are state authorized local state law—as is all on based governmental Legislature activity not has —the supervision governmental subjected local to state public improvement by cre a decisions to finance ating levying assessment district and Legislature, consistent assessment. supervising general policy of not local with el,13 governmental the state has activities at lev any other State Tax Commission or authorized the supervision agency to exercise administrative state appeal of a home-rule or to on decisions of city, review commissioner, local or of other of a drain respecting improve governmental authorities local through financing special assessm their ments and ents.14 C supplemen- Property Act and The General chapter *37 compiled in real and tal laws the on personal property contain number of taxation a concerning provisions special These assessments.15 provisions in the main16 the collection of concern ple, review decisions of local it enacted an administrative actions of afterwards, Tax Act related This this Court’s 908 tax or clause of actions for refund of General See text The At the See excise (1961), provision special Property state has not local units taxes, time of commence an action for a refund. opinion where four decision accompanying constitution assessment” under fell solely issuance Tax Act into of the in Knott v to the "taxation of enactment of the Tax Tribunal government. desuetude as to special provided justices units Court, and because and provided denial of following procedures assessments violated the Flint, fn said that government protest a state administrative the title of 16, ante, special licenses, and, fn 65. property”. any act with p within 30 637. person assessments provision 483, 495; regard and See also General See fn 59. Act, zoning, respect may to, days tribunal § concerning 109 NW2d title-object MSA 7.97. for exam pay "any fn 105. 53 of following Property and not nor has to the to Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. special property assessments and sale which specially nonpayment has been special assessed for of the Cities, assessment. drain commissioners governmental levying spe- a other authorities may generally cial assessment do utilize the machinery established for the collection of ad property valorem to a taxes collect assess- Special ordinarily ment. assessments are billed together the ad valorem tax collector with ad property. cities, valorem tax on real While drain governmental commissioners and other local au- empowered levy special thorities to assessments subject are not to the State Tax Commission, the is tax collector to the jurisdiction of the State Commission.17
Although the State Tax Commission did supervise does not have or review governmental decisions local authorities public improvement by establishing finance a levying assessment district and jurisdiction, assessment, its both before the enact- ment now, of the Tax Tribunal Act and extends to supervision required of a tax collector who collect laws.18 assessments under the legislative Consistent with intent what- formerly appellate ever was of the business appellate State Tax Commission would become the Tribunal, business of the Tax the Tax Tribunal provides Act for the transfer Tax Tribunal appellate jurisdiction of the State Tax Com- "special concerning mission to review decisions * * * under tax laws”. *38 17See fn ff. 18See ff. fn 106 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. Tax Com- State appellate jurisdiction "special concerning
mission to review decisions * * * was tax laws” property under assessments concerning the collection limited to decisions to, not extend and did assessments special Tax does Tribunal transferred to, to subjected whether not extend benefited, specially special assessment was case and litigated instant meritorious issue dominates as- litigation respecting which sessments.
In sum: original —The Tribunal has exclusive and Tax the collection relating of decisions * * * under "special assessments (which laws” decisions are also to adminis- Commission), tration the State Tax but not over levying decisions under act, Code, home-rule cities the Drain or other laws provisions conferring of law on units of local im- government to finance authority public provements dis- by establishing special assessment assessments, tricts decisions levying not subject supervision the State Tax Com- mission;
—The circuit court jurisdic- continues have tion over an action challenging assess- ment on ground property proposed assessed was not benefited. specially specially- Act, Before enactment such an action could not brought have been either before "the state commission or the circuit court”, but court. only circuit *39 v Novi 665 Wikman by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J.
D adopted In to the adhering today position a few ago the Court of in a years by Appeals conclusory Court, opinion,19 by enlarging both the oppor- ("inde- tunity litigation scope and the of review and de novo” under pendent, original the Tax Act),20 cities, impairs capacity drain governmental commissioners and other local public authorities improvements to finance with below) (see part VI in- state, through Tribunal, volves the the Tax matters with which the has state not heretofore concerned itself.21 (as Tax Tribunal originally business state
constituted, before over other taxes theretofore within the it) Appeals is, Board of Tax was upon conferred County Emmet v State Tax this Court decided Comm, (1976), 397 244 909 NW2d limited to providing a means of review decisions formerly "heard State Commission as an appellate In body”.22 deciding, so this Court grasped essence the Tax Tribunal Act. Today thread, Court does not see that but words lineage. without
II statute, In construing obliged a court effectuate legislative A purpose. literal mean- ing may give meaning therefore to a way wholly consistent with the language used which 19 See text See See text See fn fn 135. 126. accompanying (subpart L) following following fn 88. fn 65. Mich Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. or other substan- history or from context
appears purpose. legislative tial evidence did not Legislature appear If it were assess- "special the words or limit modify intend to tax laws” or "property the term ments” has term of art which is not a tax laws” "property in the constitution23 meaning a fixed providing of law provision a law simply means prop- respect exaction governmental for a *40 effect to obliged give to would be erty,24 we or mislead- imprecise however legislative purpose purpose. express to such language chosen ing however, context or not, appear from It does evi- materials or other legislative and no history, using in the term presented, dence has been not intend Legislature did tax laws” the "property "special words assessments” modify to tax meaning "property not adopt did 6, 28 in article as that term is used laws” § constitution. Commission, both the State Tax
The business of of the Tax Tribunal now and before enactment Act, body the administration of a consisted of 6, in 28 of the law described article statutory § constitution in the Tax Tribunal Act as and tax laws”.25 "property original” ju-
The Tax "exclusive and Tribunal’s (its jurisdiction risdiction conferred subsequently exclusive)26 is not respect to other state taxes is B) following (subpart accompanying See fn 30. text and D) (subpart accompanying following 41. See text and fn B) following (subpart accompanying fn 30. See text accompanying See fns 69 and 117 and text. v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. continuing coextensive with of the State Tax Commission the administration laws. property tax
A The term tax laws” "property appears twice in Tax Act concerning jurisdiction, Tribunal § below) (see B appellate also concerning § review. Act, 31, provides
The Tax Tribunal § has exclusive and original jurisdic- tion relating "special to review decision to as- * * * sessments under tax laws”.27 The thus, laws”, term tax "property modifies limits the term "special assessments”. The Tax Tribu- nal’s only extends decisions relating assessments made under property laws and relating does extend decisions under provisions assessments made laws or of law that are not laws. part statement, second of the jurisdictional *41 31,
also set forth proceeding concerns for § "[a] refund or of redetermination a tax under property plaintiffs tax laws”.28 Because do not seek either a refund or redetermination rather but action, bring an in equity, seeking set aside altogether and to part restrain collection of of any a special assessment, we majority29 agree that only part first jurisdictional §31 statement, quoted in preceding paragraph, is involved in the instant case.
27See fn 7. 28See fn 7.
29Ante, p 631. 413 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J.
B establishes the Tax Tribunal Act 53 of Section of the Tax review of decisions scope judicial of of Const designates purposes” "for It Tribunal. final "the 1963, §28, the Tax Tribunal as 6, art property for the administration agency supplied.)30 laws”. (Emphasis limits the constitution article 6 of Section 28 of appeal "any an from review of scope judicial final the administration provided for agency supplied.)31 tax laws”. (Emphasis property 28 on the floor of the This was added to clause § concern response to Constitutional Convention delegates appeals to the courts expressed by Tax Commission would State delay from valorem property collection of ad taxes.32 30See fn 8. decisions, findings, rulings any and orders of adminis "All final law, existing by agency or officer under the constitution trative or private judicial quasi-judicial rights or licen are or and affect which ses, by provided the courts law. shall be to direct review include, minimum, as a the determination whether This review shall decisions, findings, rulings and orders authorized such final law; are and, required, hearing a is the same cases in which whether supported by competent, on are material substantial evidence proceed Findings compensation record. fact whole in workmen’s ings otherwise shall be conclusive absence of fraud unless provided by law. fraud, wrong adoption “In the law or the' absence of no error of agency principles, appeal may any any ñnal be taken to court from any
provided property deci- the administration of tax laws from relating §28. sion to valuation allocation.” Const art (Emphasis supplied.) * * * 32"Mr. Brake: votes, day, margin "What we the other of 11 was said gone taxpayer local after the community, has board of in his to the review gone commission, they to the have then has state worth, go property always how is he to a said court and have the much his that then can 'No, right. judge say: think I I don’t value $9,500.’ $10,000. think think don’t is worth I it’s worth just impossible you’re going tax law that That is if to have *42 v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. Never, trying get And at. will work. in the world can we have a opinion with. that is all we were to never judge opinion substitute his for the machinery you the of assessors have can live Now, faith, when there is a matter of bad when there is a fraud, tax, illegal remedy ready any an court matter of the in the is always get things. talking time. about is the matter of taxed. can in court on those All You we’re fixing upon the value which is to be illegal, gone you you’ve “If assessment is don’t wait until through remedy immediately the state You have tax commission. illegal, your on is court an assessment that circuit of own fixing county. for the just nothing This is a matter of the of the else— value— wording of tax allocation board. think our decision I. everything excludes else. President, dispute point. "Mr. Allen: Mr. I also would Mr. Hatch’s I limiting, by think ment, feels that or he somehow other we’re appeal this amend- right from the state tax commission that now trying say exists. All we’re commission matters we to do in this is that on to state tax preserve rights already all exist but going go we are not to further and allow the to court substitute its judgment and become an assessor. question involved; "We are also concerned about the of time that is inability spread you in the of local units to their rolls where first have appeal appeal. the amendment to the state tax commission and then another designed protect existing rights, is all the and I s complaints appeals haven’t heard on from the state tax I commission. problem nothing don’t away, think we have a there. We take we but don’t want to broaden and we do broaden it too if far much we put don’t in. amendment President, delegates, "Mr. Thomson: Mr. fellow I that Dele- believe gate approached practical this from a theoretical than Hatch rather standpoint. years’ experience assessing With 12 as an officer and 20 years’ experience board, as a member an have allocation we enough delay when we have to fool around with the state tax commission; possibly get by so I don’t think that we if it had to could urge you be a continuation in the courts. I vote for amendment. urge delegates, strongly "Mr. Buback: Mr. President and fellow I you approve this amendment. been little I’ve asked make a statement here and I think it’s worthwhile for the record. VI, entirety statutory language "Section 28 of article which in its constitution, belong which certainly does not at most should exception least proceedings illegality appeals be amended to include an for from except state case of commission fraud findings assessment. fact of state tax commis- normally highly sion are technical determinations valuations Mich 617 *43 by Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. on style the committee by revision Before its floor, in clause, the adopted on drafting, the and of from a decision to a court terms appeals barred * * * fixing for commission value tax the ’’state Thus, the indisputably, tax property purposes”.33 delegates the to the Constitu- which agency” "final Tax in mind was the State had tional Convention Commission. drafting recom- style on and
The committee language of of present the the substitution mended floor: on the language approved 28 for the § the (i) for administration agency provided "final Commission”, laws” for "State tax property of and valuation or
(ii) relating "from decision to any value the of allocation” for "fixing "a decision” purposes tax or property property for described an from a decision of determining appeal equalization purposes. They dis- or should not be either assessment turbed given except to has been in the case of fraud. No evidence part power any of the tax commis- abuse this on of demonstrate sion and therefore provision a not contain restrictive constitution should costly delays proceedings for which will result in all of taxes the detriment of and assessment and collection local units of government. will remain units, important single unless most revenue source for such local and equalization appeals an on of and can be handled matters manner, expeditious furnishing inter- of local services will be open up To full review fered with and our citizens will suffer. equalization only serve determination of facts on assessments and will supreme Michigan super to will result as a assessor establish the court disturbing assessing princi- application the uniform ples urge adoption by strongly I of this state tax commission. Record, pp Constitutional Convention amendment.” 2 Official 3240-3243. appeal may any court from a decision of “No taken prop fixing property for state tax commission erty the value of described purposes determining appeal of the an from decision Record, Con county tax allocation board.” Official Constitutional 1961, p vention 3240. Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. tax allocation board”. county (Emphasis sup- plied.)34 style
The recommendations of the committee on considered, drafting respecting were to- § gether con- with the committee’s recommendations cerning number other sections of the constitu- tion, accepted were without further floor dis- cussion.35 thus,
A "property
pur-
tax law” is
at
least
poses
constitution,
of article
a law
§
administration
Tax Com-
subject
State
The laws
mission.36
administration
*44
34
Record,
1961, pp
2 Official
Constitutional Convention
3291-3293.
35Id.
36
language
more
This becomes even
clear when one considers the
by
style
drafting
express
the
on
chosen
tion of the
committee
inten
the
delegates
exception
to make an
for decisions of the State
fixing
property
pur
property
Tax
poses.
the
Commission
value of
for
tax
enabling
provides
The
act which created
State Tax
the
Commission
general supervision
that it "shall have
of
of
the administration
the
360;
209.104;
tax laws of the
state”.
PA
MCL
MSA 7.634.
(1941
(Emphasis supplied.)
Department
The
of
was
Revenue
created
122;
205.1;
7.657[1])
subsequently
PA
enacted
MCL
to administer the
sales, intangible,
and, hence,
and other state taxes
the need
"property”
to add
before "tax laws” in
refer
the constitution to
accurately to the
Tax
State
Commission and its functions.
fn 70.
See
language quoted
repeats language
The
from
Tax Tribunal administration agency ("for laws”, implementation purposes”) express in forth in 28 of limitation set of the constitutional § meaning necessarily incorporated article Legisla- the constitution. term used "prop- the term comprehended ture therefore laws”, the functions of erty at least § provi- Tax Commission and statutes State State law had been sions of which jurisdiction. Tax Commission’s of a It been said that connotation has "[t]he often clari- portion may term in one of an Act others.” United fied to its use by reference Cooper Corp, 312 US 600, 606; Ct States v 61 S (1941). L Ed suggests This *45 in the term Legislature sense which used the tax in the Tax "property (designating laws” § as "final connotes the mean- agency”) Tribunal the ing (establishing that in the Tax of term 31§ jurisdiction). Tribunal’s Legislature, in using phrase, the same laws”, the tax in 31 and 53 of
"property both §§ 211.152(3); Michigan apply”. state 7.210(3). PA of shall v Novi Wikman Dissenting by Opinion Levin, J. Act,37 Tax purpose Tribunal manifested a to limit the Tax Tribunal to the appel- formerly late jurisdiction by exercised the "final "provided State Tax agency” Commission — —the for the administration tax laws”. laws”, "property The term tax in Tax of the § Act, act, Tribunal in of that as it is rooted as § constitution, in provisions means laws and ad valorem property taxes. concerning law
C We do argue, put as forth in the opinion of Court, that "because” valuation and allocation are "under matters that laws” are not.38 The argument is rather framers constitution used "property words laws” to the body describe Commission, law administered State Tax in Legislature, using those words one 53) (§ section of the Tax Act in the very sense which the framers of the constitution 31) used those (§ words and in another section the Tax Tribunal Act its jurisdiction describe had in law, mind one the same body of laws formerly and still administered the State Tax Commission. laws”, "property tax to adminis-
Because tration by Commission, State all are laws valorem ad concerning taxes, possible ex- plain what is meant by tax laws” "property saying, opinion, prop- we have said erty tax laws are laws levying ad valorem taxes (taxes personal assessed on the value of real or 7, 8, See fns and 31. 38Ante, p 639. *46 413 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. ad valorem prop- or, descriptively, more
property) also explain, as we have one erty may tax laws. Or and now adminis- said, are the laws then they that Tax Commission. tered the State with the challenged explanation Either can had Legislature "if empty argument to ad valorem tax to limit laws property meant” State or to the business tax laws property those "it have used” Tax Commission would words.39 explain to what a word attempts one
Whenever be used. Whenever must means another word what language explains words court construes mean, it words other than the necessarily uses construed, the opinion as does being words alternative is say, Court in this case.40 The arguments one does read frequently all too opinions say which no more judicial lawyers than, being construed means the word word "prop- tax laws” means being "property construed: convey meaning, If one erty laws”. wishes however, tax laws” say "property one must Y X or include or does means or does not mean argument "if mean and include Z. The threadbare meant, have” should Legislature had would be exorcized._ 39Ante, p argument respect 640. A the word similar made Ante, p "collection”. 642. opinion of the Court declares: “However, special against property assessments levied owners public improvements realty especially their which benefit purposes are under the tax laws for the Ante, p Tribunal Act.” 636. opinion Court also declares: phrase distinguishes [“property assess- "[T]he laws”] taxing power relate to real ments are under and that Ante, types p
property from other 640. assessments”. Wikman v Novi Opinion Dissenting Levin, J.
D *47 say "special To because that the words assess- in appear ments” the context of the Tax § suggests Tribunal Act or that the Legislature "must have” a purpose had in mind broader or meaning intended that a to broader ascribed "property wholly tax laws” would be circular and deprive would the term tax laws” "property of meaning "special as a modifier of assessments”.
The context of the Tax Tribunal Act —the lan-
of
guage
the act other
than the language being
suggest
construed —does not
a
purpose
broader
for
31 than providing for review of decisions relating
§
to ad valorem property
taxes.41 No language
in
other
of
sections
the Tax
suggests
Tribunal Act
the Legislature used the term
tax
"property
laws”
different senses in
5342or
used
§§
following provisions
Act,
The
example,
the Tax Tribunal
for
applied
special
could not be
to
assessments:
*
**
(1)
35.
dispute
"Sec.
In the case of an assessment
as to the
property
claimed,
exemption
valuation of the
assessment must be
tribunal
an
or where
is
protested
before
board of review before the
may acquire jurisdiction
dispute, except
that for the
year only
county
equalized
tax
in a
by
whose state
valuation set
the state tax commission
its
exceeds
assessed valuation and its
equalized
by
county
set
valuation
board of
commissioners
year
10%,
by
taxpayer may
at
appeal directly
least
to the tax
205.735(1);
7.650(35)(1).(Emphasis
tribunal.” MCL
supplied.)
MSA
(1)
arriving
37.
"Sec.
In
at its
determination
a lawful
assessment, the tribunal
by multiplying
shall determine the amount
finding
its
percentage equal
of true cash value
to the ratio of the
average level of assessment in relation to
cash
true
values
7.650(37)(1).
205.737(1);
(Emphasis
assessment district.” MCL
MSA
supplied.)
assessments”,
payment
"special
There is no reference
only
payment
205.743(1);
7.650(43X1).
of "taxes”. See MCL
This
provision, by
its terms
apply
as amended
1976 PA
would not
special
205.743(2);
7.650(43X2).
to a
assessment. See MCL
provision
There is no
of the Tax Tribunal Act which would be
applicable only
assessments.
42See fns 7 and 8.
the terms appear.43 those terms where in different senses acknowledges of the Court opinion The of limitation. tax laws” are words "property term prop- specifically define opinion does laws, opinion import tax but erty discernible. phrase [property that "the opinion says assess- between distinguishes
laws]
other
case and
ments
involved
under
laws”.44
not levied
assessments
examples
suggested by the
aside that
Putting
which
opinion
possible
Tax Tribunal
would not be
*48
least,
tenuous,45
are,
the "distinction”
to
the
say
205.735;
7.650(35);
205.734;
7.650(34);
MSA
See
MCL
MCL
MSA
7.650(43).
205.737;
7.650(37);
205.743;
MCL
MSA
MCL
44Ante, p 633.
opinion
opinion
to
Court’s
in Motz v
The
of the Court refers
this
Detroit,
(1869);
5.1823 and Dukesherer
Mich 495
(After Remand),
Farms,
Agriculture
Dep’t
v Director of
of
Inc
(1979).
1, 14,
"Allocation and are ad valorem property liar taxes. Because "alloca- or equalization” only tion arise under the property laws, tax the Court could not that "the say phrase distinguishes tax [property between” "alloca- laws] equalization” or arising tion under the property equalization” tax laws and "allocation or not aris- ing under laws.
"Property tax laws” is common a denominator pertains to all being the words modified: assessment, valuation, rates, assessments, allocation, and equalization. Manifestly, speak- ing tax laws in "assessment, the clause tax?) presented actment a question in Dukesherer Farms is not the question We here. are confronted rather with a constructional under opinion argues the Tax Tribunal Act. The of the Court that a city assessment "taxing power”. levied a home-rule levied under accompanying See flu text. Dukesherer Farms proposition levy stands for the or assessment there involved "tax", levy was not a or assessment involved in Dukesherer being "tax”, appealing Farms not levy a decision from such a *49 not, assessment would "property in either the construction of tax opinion laws” discernible from the of the Court or the construction correct, which we believe to be be within the of the Tax (The reasoning Tribunal. of the Court would not include within "property non-governmental tax a laws” exaction authorized or re- quired by government levy or in [the Dukesherer Farms or, example, compulsory programs], implicit for insurance and "property of construction tax laws” which we be believe to correct is exaction.) only governmental that the term includes 46See fn 7. 413 Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. allocation, assessments, valuation, rates, or laws”, Legis- property tax under equalization, pertinent statutory of law body meant lature and, well, as equalization and to allocation assessment, valuation, special assess- rates Property The That law is General body ments. of Act, and collection providing levying valorem state personal tax on real and the ad to which law pursuant body property, law, assessments, body levied under collected. may be
E "property the Court defines opinion recognize and does not generically laws” a term of art which rooted phrase history state. statutory constitutional "property word in the term can isolate each One an term argument and make tax laws” perhaps or even governmental exaction any means by gov- exaction authorized non-governmental respect on to "property”. ernment47 levied can authorized exaction be Any governmentally "tax”. The authoriza- regarded governmental as a tion the "law”. The exaction is bound would be out of respect payable levied on or to48and be defined, "property words "property”. So limita- meaning laws” cease to have as words of tion. corporation tax law levies a value- franchise (ad valorem)
based
tax measured
book
Farms,
Dep’t
Agriculture
v
See Dukesherer
Inc Director of
(1979),
(After
Remand),
supra,
405 Mich
ments.52 any tax laws” as law autho-
Defining "property
*51
the
support
would also
rizing
a tax on
a
prop-
the income tax is
tax on
conclusion that
Su-
Indeed,
the United States
it is because
erty.
the Sixteenth
so declared
preme Court
In
to the states.
Pol-
submitted
Amendment was
Co,
US
& Trust
v
Loan
lock
Farmers’
(1895), the
States
673;
F
"phrase
Court
opinion of the
states that
distinguishes
assess-
[property
special
laws]
power and that
taxing
ments that are under
fn
See
69.
Capitation,
provides:
The United
"No
or other
States Constitution
direct,
laid,
Proportion
Tax shall
unless in
Census or
be
I,
Art
9.§
directed to
taken.”
Enumeration herein before
rehearing,
opinions
the Court reached the same conclusion. The
On
quite lengthy, extending
pages, and
that reason we
are
will
over 100
for
simply quote
in
Special assessments have indeed been sometimes "taxes”, denominated as and it has been said that legislative the ity constitutional source author- provide levying for the of a assess- "taxing power”. ment Court, is the This Paving 1860’s, Detroit Cases faced with the taking claim a a was Clause, said, violation the Eminent Domain difficulty opinions with some which failed to majority,55 legis- command that the source of the provide authority lative taxing power:
was question, money "This involves the whether at- tempted defray to be raised means the assessment expenses improving street, public sought domain, right to be taken virtue of the of eminent sovereign or in power the exercise of the *52 City Detroit, taxation.” v 2 Mayor Williams and Mich (1853). 560, (Emphasis 566 original.) in question today, Faced with the same the Court 54Ante, p 640. 55Justice Campbell wrote: is, question powers "The first that arises under what division of is authority this exercise of to be classed? It was held the former Court, Supreme that these taxing power, Detroit, Mayor in Williams v 2 Mich 560 [1853], expenditures charges only justified and could under the imposition public purposes. as the of burdens for Such decisions; is the course of modern and if it be not an of the exercise
taxing power, easy any upon.” it is not to find basis for it to rest Christiancy Detroit, separate opinion. Woodbridge Justice wrote a v (1860). 8 Mich 289 Manning disagreed Justice and said: purely public improvements, us, "Taxes for local like the one before assessments, generally more called are not mentioned in constitu- tion, necessary they give legislature power nor is it should be to power impose taxes, over them. The to and collect such like all other legislative powers constitution, plenary, not mentioned in the is and legislative only.” in the exercise of it is discretion Chief Manning’s Id., opinion. Justice Martin in concurred Justice 281. 413 617
682 Mich Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. subsequent light might, in decision Gra- of its Saginaw, 431; 42 27 NW2d 317 Mich ham v regard- (1947), having its statements and in mind impose authority ing drain the source police special assessments,56 in the locate taxes provide authority power the constitutional special levying of a assessment. Conceding, arguendo, however, constitu- Legislature’s authority to en- tional source of concerning act laws power,
taxing
that all
laws
it does not follow
taxing
power are
under the
enacted
every
law enacted under the
laws or even
taxing
power
personal prop-
respect
real
Conceding
erty
tax law.
is a
Legislature’s authority
source of the
constitutional
(the
"taxing power”, the constructional
issue
is
meaning
laws”)
"property
under
Act remains.
Graham,
that a
assess-
In
the Court held
meaning
of the 15-
is
a "tax”57within
ment
respecting "taxes
mill constitutional
limitation
against property” (emphasis supplied).58
assessed
Thus,
purposes
for the
of the 15-mill
at
least
"property
limitation,
a
assessment is not
prop-
light Graham,
In
cannot
tax”.
Court
56
(1923).
Harrison,
512;
v
NW
See also
See Moore
224 Mich
195
306
Sullivan,
447;
(1915);
Cilley
Attorney
v
187 Mich
By
present
1974,
1963 and
when the
constitution
drafted,
and the Tax Tribunal Act were
it was
clear,59 whatever the constitutional source of the
59
provisions
This Court has held that
the constitution and The
Property
concerning "property
apply
General
to
Tax Act
taxes” do not
special
they
assessments because
are not taxes. This Court has
said:
general
"There
a clear
is
distinction between what are termed
taxes
special
imposed generally
assessments. The former are burdens
upon property
governmental purposes
regard
owners for
without
special
any
taxpayer.
benefit which will inure to the
The latter are
upon
theory
sustained
special
that
value of
improvement
assessment district is enhanced
for which
General,
the assessment is made.” In re Petition of Auditor
226 Mich
(1924).
170, 173;
Similarly,
Saginaw,
The floor of constitutional adopted on the language is the tax purposes”),60 tax ("property convention "allocation”, subject to "valuation” requiring to the ad valo- are, again, peculiar which concepts rem personal property. "prop- The on real and in exaction every governmental is not erty tax” governmental or even respect property, every to personal property, to respect real exaction the ad valorem on real and personal only but property. not a a term of art and tax laws” is
"Property is justified of which Court collection words meaning. its Those words have giving own meaning is those tax meaning, and that fixed fixed the State Tax Commission by laws administered ad valorem personal prop- real and which are laws. erty tax term Legislature "property did not use the Stores, 73; Metropolitan NW 587 see (1929); v Chain 247 Mich Blake taxes, required payment ordinary as well the lease of “all upon extraordinary, every may kind be as against that levied or assessed premises”. said Indeed, found assessments were so dissimilar Property Tax to add a taxes that an amendment to The General provision concerning PA 234 of Act (1941 actions for refund 7.97) amending 53; thought by four was § (before seven) eight justices was reduced to to violate number 21; (Const 1908, 5, title-object art § clause of constitution 24) 4, 1963, currently solely "related Const art because the title act § procedure followed to the taxation of and the 483, Flint, 109 NW2d with reference thereto”. Knott v (1961).(Emphasis supplied.) action Flint had contended a law justices, adequate remedy. three for refund was an without discussion four) The other four 53, agreed opinion (signed with lead § equitable proofs an and that the action could be maintained supported finding no benefit. decree accompanying fn 33 and See text. Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. concerning
tax laws” in different senses § review, appellate concerning jurisdiction. §
G opinion ignores the Court the words tax laws” to a law still "property body refers Tax Com- administration State mission. *55 fails into if opinion
The to take account that provisions of the home-rule cities act empowering a a city special to assessment is a levy property tax for of purposes jurisdiction law Tax so it property purposes too is a tax law for of the continuing of the State Tax Commis- thus, sion. The State Commission after may supervise today, have to and other city governmental respect local in units, special to as- ad sessments in much the local same manner as valorem tax assessors are supervised. opinion that,
The
also fails to take into account
applying
reasoning
Code,
the same
to the Drain
the Tax Tribunal
exercise
may
quasi-judicial
now
review of special
pursuant
assessments
levied
to
the Drain
and
Code61
the State Tax Commission
provides
Section
265 of
Drain Code
that “drain
assessed
taxes
provisions
under
and
other
subject
of this act shall be
to the same interest
charges,
be
and shall
collected in the same
as state and
manner
general
collected,
collecting
hereby
taxes are
are
and
officers
power
authority
vested with the same
and
of such
collection
may
collecting general
taxes as are or
MCL
be conferred
for
taxes”.
law
11.1265.
might provide
statutory
This
a
basis
State Tax Commission and
Hillyer
Tax Tribunal
of
review the
drain
collection of
taxes. But see
v
644,
Twp,
(1897), holding
Jonesfield
114 Mich
may drain commissioners supervise county bility the Drain provisions the administration special taxes and assess- drain concerning Code ments. Court, authorizing a declaring a law under tax- assessment enacted special
local special that a assessment autho- ing power, states subject not be police power under would rized jurisdiction.62 to Tax Tribunal arises under the home-rule Because this case will, Code, Drain effort no act and not the an cities they spread, property to be like ad valorem taxes because are an are tax, special ad not on the basis benefit but valorem ad valorem government making property against the local unit all real within assessment, Although a denominated such a the assessment. levy subject other limitations is a tax and is constitutional and applicable to taxes: against property all real within a local unit assessment levied "[A]n government confer a on the of assessed is which does not benefit tax, notwithstanding a the fact it is denominated 5706, OAG, 1979-1980, p In No as a assessment. statute 1980), 13, (May against pal that a was determined so-called municipality a all within finance munici effect, be, general ambulance service would approval requirements 31. voter of Const art 6 and §§ *56 levy municipal-wide for the conclusion was that a for such a reason purpose all of the residents it is not a assessment since be for the benefit of would and would benefit on thereof confer no (December OAG, 1981, 22, 1981). property assessed.” No provides apportionments Drain of While the Code bene- "[a]U provisions principle upon under the of this act shall fits derived”, 280.152; 11.1152, levy permits a benefits MCL an municipality’s against the entire ipality, share of a munic- 11.1151, 280.151; levy MCL which then the same must against municipality property amount all individual owners in the ad valorem, valorem, levy, is MSA 11.1263. Such ad not a (March OAG, 1943-1944, 0-2042, special assessment, p No 1944). valorem, levy language Since such is made ad Drain authorizing pur- municipality might, levy Code poses make the Act, authorizing provision of the Tax an Tribunal be a law ad and, hence, might pro property on valorem tax Code tanto Drain Code, property although provisions be a other of the Drain law authorizing cial spe- on the basis of assessments benefit conferred—true property assessments —are not laws. 62Ante, p 635. Wikman v Novi Opinion by Dissenting Levin, J. doubt, be made on the bases of the distinction taxing police drawn power the Court between the and pronouncements
and its earlier on the provide authority source of the for drain taxes except special assessments, jurisdic- under the Drain Code from Tax Tribunal upon tion. The Court will then be called to recon- reasoning language opinion sider the today the Court filed and whether to adhere to it withdrawing or find a basis for from it.
H opinion argu- The of the Court states that an opinion analogous ment set forth in this arguing that because Great Danes and Dachs- dogs, dog.63 hunds are a Pekinese is not a premise dogs that all three are is a matter of knowledge; is, therefore, common there no con- dog”, structional Rayburn issue. Here there is. "That Sam say, question hunt”; would "won’t if the dogs dogs were which hunt don’t, and which we could be faced with a constructional issue. question governmental here is what exac-
tions are within the of the Tax Tribu- governmental nal and which are not. Unless all exactions are levied under tax laws and subject juris- were intended to be to Tax Tribunal governmental diction, there must be some exac- although tions which are not taxes there dogs dogs. cannot be who are not governmental We know that all exactions are jurisdiction, to Tax if for no other reason than because it took the 1976 1980 amendments to confer over other state on taxes the Tax Tribunal.64
63Ante, p 639. 64See fn 69. *57 617 413
688 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. I to state and in respect legislation history suggests persuasively taxes and local the require does history —concededly not been has the Tax Tribunal conclusion —that with this one instance only vested local assessment. of a on the Tax Tribunal conferred Legislature Tax Commission the State predecessors,
and its Ap- Board of Tax (and and the predecessors) its re- (and authority predecessors), its peals of state taxes.65 levying view tax assessment personal and While real all today and the local level is at and review expended locally,66 collected are revenues prop- from the revenue received levied and state of the Tax predecessors the time the tax at erty valorem Ad established.67 Tribunal were sion, ment, Commissioners, the MCL means to, Act. See ceased to receive assessment tionality Mich L Rev 371 also empowered interfered Court said: See state taxes The Tax Tribunal When After the 15-mill Auditor General and 15-mill Appeals, the State Board of 1927 PA PA 44; 211.201-211.217; 205.13; 1925 PA for the administration Property Stason, with the Board of State Tax process. PA, p in 1899 to revise the assessment limitation; MCL MSA 1941 PA and not local taxes 360; 155; local 1899 PA (1933). enabling The Fifteen a share of the tax Tax Limitation 517 for the text MCL MCL 7.657[13]; self-government. limitation was added now Const and its 122; Tax Administration 154; 209.101; 209.152; act was 7.61-7.77, MCL Mill Tax Amendment 1915 CL 4144 et of, and the State Secretary predecessors 7.601) and for review or assessments. 205.9 et Act was enacted MSA MSA of Const challenged Commissioners revenues for the In were 7.621; 7.631; rejecting art seq.; MSA to the constitution 1908, State, constituted to (the Property Tax Limitation and certain seq.; Board of the Board generated on the State property, § of decisions 6. See State art the State Board see and Its was created 10, 7.657[9] 1933, the state ground challenge, 1945 PA Tax Commis Equalization, 1933 PA of State Tax Tax functions of § 21, provide Effect, constitu- relating Depart in 1932 et adding local seq.; 103; distinctively The State of local concern. a matter "It was not *58 Novi 689 Wikman v by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. subject taxes to are state statewide adminis- taxes tration, local while assessments are exac- subject to tions not statewide administration. portion
Although property no of the tax is now state, remitted to the state is still concerned proper property with the tax. School aid and other revenue based administration of the
sharing are part equalized in substantial on state val- subject ue.68The tax is still to statewide proper property, only in the assessment of as to concerned its own they as affected to interests are the collection or failure collect the but, necessary carry government, supreme on funds ity as the author- State, legislature 14, required by 12, section art Constitution, to it to see that assessments be made on at its Rapids real value.” of State Tax v Board Comm’rs Grand Board of (1900). Assessors, 491, 496; 124 Mich 83 209 NW An earlier state involvement of was the creation the State Board of 106; Equalization obsolete et (repealed See 1851 1851. PA PA 248 240); 44; seq.; 1915 PA 1911 PA MCL 209.1 et MSA 7.601 seq. supervise It was essential that the state the administration of the personal property real tax laws lest or underassessment other maladministration revenues city at local level reduce the amount of state significant departure township, or result in one between county of another the level taxation or other variance principle uniformity inconsistent with the basic constitutional 1908, 10, 3-8; 1850, 14, 11-13; taxation. See Const Const art Const art §§ §§ 1963, 9, art 3.§ 1977, 90; See the State School Aid Act PA MCL 388.1401 15.1919(701) seq.; seq., concerning et MSA et allocation school state aid fund. Sharing The State Revenue Act of 1971 PA MCL 141.901 5.3194(401) seq.; seq., provides larger payments et MSA et to those government greater local units of which make a effort. MCL 141.913; 5.3194(405). 5.3194(413); 141.905; MSA MCL MSA strength (ad gauged by of a local tax effort is the tax revenue valorem, excise) 141.904(3); 5.3194(404)(3), income and MCL MSA value, 141.905(1); equalized derived in 5.3194(405)(1). might relation to state MCL MSA supervision level, Absent at the state communities resulting have an incentive to reduce valuations and assess only community’s county ments not to reduce the share of the tax bill sharing but also to increase revenue entitlements. While amounts derived part from assessments are treated as the tax effort under an alternative formula which can increase but not reduce the 5.3194(414), sharing, 141.914; amount of revenue MCL MSA MCL 5.3194(406), since a fact the amount derived is rather formula, concept 141.904(5); 5.3194(404)(5), than or a may subject manipulation not be and has not heretofore been made supervision. a matter of state Mich 617 Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. tax. and it is a state administration granted The additional 1980 amend- the 1976 Tribunal as a result of as the such taxes to state only ments69 extends formerly taxes state income and sales Appeals.70 Board of Tax appeal to the drafted, jurisdictional state Act was When the Tax Tribunal property tax ment, 31, under to taxes and assessments was confined § concluding provided, afterthought, § it was as an laws. Almost that appeals, court of pleas tax the proceed board of formerly before "the any person could who board, body, any quasi-judicial appeal corporation tax court, court, court, municipal claims, common probate district court, matter of a this state for determination or circuit court of *59 section, provided shall jurisdiction, in this to the tribunal’s supplied.) (Emphasis there was proceed only nary But before the tribunal”. regarding the tribunal. of the 79§ a word in 79§ 7.650(79)(2). 205.779(2); 186, 79, 2; MSA MCL 1973 PA subd § meaning 79 Legislature it amended § in 1976 when clarified its The any body formerly appealable or court provide to such to for determination of a intangibles that cases tax, relating the the state income matter fee, tax, general tax, the the franchise the inheritance tax, tax, tax, tax, cigarette gasoline or oil and the the use the sales tax, only PA gas proceed tribunal”. 1976 before the severance "shall 7.650(79)(2).Significantly, 37; 205.779(2); the statutes all MSA MCL state taxes. referred to concerned Attorney 1976 amendment was viola- ruled that the The General 25, 1963, 4, prohibiting by reference to amendment of Const art § tive the title OAG, length. publication requiring only and at re-enactment 1976). (December 10, 1975-1976, 5138, p Midland But see No 704 641, 656-663; Comm, Boundary Twp 259 NW2d v State (1977). 1980, person again providing Legislature that a tried once The may appeal the aggrieved contested payment Court of Claims MCL the of the revenue division a' decision portion Claims after Tax or the Court of to the appeal portion, except that in an to the of the uncontested 162; pay appellant the tax”. 1980 PA the "shall first 7.657(22). 1980, repealed 205.22; Legislature Also in the MSA act, 169, repealing provisions 1980 PA MCL of the income tax 164, Act, 7.557(1421); 206.421; repealing Sales Tax 1980 PA MSA the General act, 205.72; 7.543; intangibles MSA the tax 1980 PA MCL act, 7.556(13); 205.143; cigarette repealing MSA and the tax MCL 7.411(8) 205.508; 167, amending MSA state taxes— 1980 PA MCL —all court, thereby judiciál providing in the circuit review theretofore appeals regarding underscoring taxes to the direct all such state its intention to the Court of Claims. Tax Tribunal or Appeal Corporation Board was abolished Franchise Fee The jurisdiction to the also transferred that board’s PA which Tribunal. Tax tax, sought of the state the state other the demise With Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J. corresponding legislative There has been no ac- regarding local taxes or assessments. tivity 1976 amendment to the Tax Tribunal Act did not provide appeals from adverse determinations to the the regard application City of Income Tax Act71or the Act72 City Utility Users Tax would (1933 revenue, of means and the sales tax was enacted in 1933 PA 167; 7.521), 205.51;MSA of MCL and succession other taxes: the use (1937 94; 205.91; 301; intangibles 7.555[1]), personal tax property tax PA MCL MSA the (1939 205.131; 7.556[1]), cigarette tax PA MCL MSA (1947 265; 205.501; 7.411[1]), PA MCL MSA income (1953 150; seq.; seq., PA MCL 205.551 et MSA et now 1967 7.557[1] seq.; seq.). PA MCL 206.1 et et MSA 7.557[101] taxes, agencies of With advent these new were created Administration, administer them—the State Board of Tax for the (now taxes, Department sales and use nue all, taxes, and the of Revenue the Reve- Department Treasury) Division to which was transferred substantially regard all administrative functions in to state exception personal taxes, with of real and which continue to be State Board of State Commission administered 7.657(13). 205.13; Equalization. See aAs result, charged the State Tax Commission ceased with the administration of "all the tax laws this state”. See fn 36. Legislature While conferred on the State Commissioner Revenue, footnote, under act and the one referred to in next power provide by uniformity rule and decision a measure of city the administration of the uniform income tax and the uniform ordinances, city utility general supervisory users did not confer powers upon 5.3194(103). the commissioner. See MCL sure, thereby provide appeal To be it did for an administrative at respect pursuant the state level. But it did so in to taxa levied to a having potentially city uniform ordinance tax is not A statewide effect. income purely City local—it affects non-residents. Novi *60 disputed pursuant levied the assessments here to an ordinance by city legal counsel; provisions city drafted the fathers or their the of charters and ordinances on assessments are uniform not potentially do not have statewide effect. appeal The administrative under not those uniform acts is final and judicial review; provide does person limit not the extent of a statutes that city aggrieved by or' a of decision of the State Commissioner may bring judicial Revenue an action in the circuit court "to obtain a 141.694; 5.3194(104), determination of the matter”. MCL MSA MCL 5.3194(335). 141.835;MSA The State Commissioner of Revenue not in was named 79 of the § originally Tax Tribunal city Act as enacted or as amended. The utility income and users taxes are not in named 79 as amended in § Thus, 1976. fn appeal See 69. no can be taken to the Tax Tribunal from the respect a decision of the State of Commissioner Revenue city utility income and taxes. users 617 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. Nor Tax Tribunal.73 has or before” the "only
tobe by the judicial for review Legislature provided of taxes.74 local excise Tax Tribunal showing that all the statutes iden- history, This concern and 1980 amendments tiñed the 1976 of the Tax Tribu- business taxes and that state taxes, state is and was predecessors nal and its Tribunal, like predeces- Tax its that indicates sors, reviewing with deci- charged only has been taxes, levying not relating decisions to state sions or local taxes assessments. opinion forth in the argue, not set
We do Court, the Tax that Tribu- special assessments "because nal does not include did not review assess- predecessors its Legisla- rather that argument ments”. a means of review a provided ture has never tax or any administrative tribunal assess- state ment other than a state or assessment that although require, does suggests, not, Act the Tax Tribunal should reasons, provid- be construed as other substantial a means adminis- ing only this one instance trative review at the state level of decision assessment, a clearer levy local absent purpose or evidence of a to do so. statement agree Legislature We could constitu- tionally local taxes and or other state administrative .agency only contend jurisdiction. We Legislature has not done so._ 5.3194(334). 141.834; See MCL MSA 69) not, (see time, Legislature fn or at some other did Act, 141.694; provisions City MCL eliminate the MSA MSA Income Tax 5.3194(104), Act, City Utility and the Users Tax MCL 5.3194(335), providing for circuit court review. 5.3194(361) seq.; seq.; See 141.851 et MCL 141.861 et et 5.3194(371) seq.; seq. et *61 v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J.
J opinion channeling The of the Court states that special appeals assessment to an "administrative agency instead of the circuit court is consistent opin with similar in actions other The contexts”.75 identify although ion contexts, does not those recognizing jurisdiction there is a hint that in the Tax Tribunal will reduce the burden on the circuit courts76 and that an administrative tribunal
may know more about this sort of business than a court.77 argument
The that "consolidation will foster equality levying standardization and special assessments”78 assumes that there were problems resulting from a standardization, lack of inequality county county that there was from in city city special drain assessments and from Legislature assessments, and that was there- provide fore remedy. moved to intervene and to a argument also assumes that standardization equality assessment are desirable. Some communities have wherewithal public improvements general finance local with part, dollars, in whole or in while others are 75Ante, p 642. opinion Court, stating "proliferation problems these available remedies shopping created of forum possibility decisions”, ante, increased p of inconsistent ig only nores that there challenging was one means of assess ment and that was an action in the circuit court. sure, provided To be the statute for a refund action in the circuit is, however, importance court. It present of no purposes whether provision statutory (see was or was not constitutional fns 16 and 59); not, whether it was only valid or forum in which a proceed court, owner could was the only circuit and he had one cause (for action, refund) (for of or whether at equity law injunction) or in an proliferation remedy respecting both. There was no challenges problem shopping levies or of forum possibility of inconsistent decisions. 77Ante, p 629. 78Ante, p 642. 413 Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. dependent as a means on
more *62 financing. em- tribunal A state administrative of powered governmental decisions review local through special find itself will assessments finance in other communi- evidence with confronted improvements been financed have "similar” ties asserted, general which, it will be dollars with improvements in do not suit indicates specially special in the owners benefit re- will be The Tax Tribunal district. assessment legislative purpose, enunciated of the minded this "foster[ing] Court, standardization special levying equality assessments”. upon to confront will be called The Tax Tribunal provision constitutional the tension between limiting of true ad valorem 50% bar- limitation the constitutional value79and cash special ring special is a unless there community Especially faces where benefit.80 declining property base, Tax Tribunal will precariously to hold to the constitu- difficult find it prop- of ad valorem the issue tional line on both erty whether a and the issue tax value public accrue from construction will benefit proposed improvement be financed assessment.
K enacted, Act was At the time the Tax Tribunal practice assess- to contest a the established equitable circuit court ment to set aside the assessment and an action was
to restrain collec- tion.81 1963, 9, art 3. Const § Jurisprudence, Callaghan’s Michigan Civil Constitutional 80 See 5
Law, 212, p 414.
§
(1977);
Inkster,
263;
Brill v
v
401 Mich
258 NW2d
See Johnson
216;
(1970);
Rapids,
Blades v Genesee
contesting less, roll, enjoining any special the collection of assessment un- days within 45 special after the confirmation of the assessment given written indicating notice is to the council an intention to file stating grounds such an action and on which it is claimed that illegal the assessment is and unless that action is commenced within Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. challenging equitable provision actions
This of con- means special established assessments —the merely re- a testing not assessment —is a language. prior no coun- was There enactment village85 language terpart to the added enabling revision, city86 before acts fourth-class enabling counterpart acts.87 in other there nor is year language, after the added less than a This Act, Tax indicates a of the Tribunal enactment understanding legislative that contests of brought, equita- properly were still actions, in the courts.88 ble portion days of the roll. If a of an assess- 90 ment roll is determined to be after the confirmation illegal, part, in whole or in the council confirmation, may illegality, possible, if revoke its correct the Property illegality it. which is not involved in the shall reconfirm imposed upon original than confirmation be assessed more was hearing 104A.4; notice thereon.” MCL without further 5.1854(4). 68.13; 1948 CL MSA 5.1361. 86 1948CL MSA 5.1846.
87See, e.g., provisions in fn 96 ff. cited Legislature thinking of state was evidence that Further taxes, special assessments not local taxes and statutes and state procedures, prescribing their own under ordinances levied prescribed by ordinances for the the times Novi’s differential between commencement of prescribed by legal proceedings and the time Tax Tribunal Act. require ordinance does not that notice Novi’s protest given rejection or of confirmation of a legal provides only It action must be commenced assessment roll. 26.01, 69-01, days § within 60 of confirmation. Novi Ordinance No ordinance, adopted May of Ordinance No dated 18 after the enactment 1969. A more recent Act, period days. extended the time to 90 Novi case, 78-1.02, 23, April 1978. In the instant letters § *64 days property owners. after confirmation were sent to proceed- Legislature, providing Act that Tribunal decision, ings days after the final shall be commenced within 30 7.650(35), order, 205.735; ruling, MSA no doubt determination or MCL contemplated aggrieved party be notified of an adverse that the would decision, days ruling, have a full 30 determination or order and 7.657(22) 205.22; regarding appeal. which to See MCL within 85, jurisdiction; 1921 PA state taxes now § tribunal’s 21.210, repealed by formerly 1975 PA appeals concerning corporation board. franchise tax Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J.
L
Construing
"property
laws” to mean laws
concerning ad valorem property taxes is consistent
a prior
with
decision of this Court. This Court has
Legislature
said that
intended to give the Tax
jurisdiction
Tribunal
over matters
formerly "heard
State Tax Commission as an appellate
original.) Emmet County v
body.” (Emphasis
Comm,
State Tax
In Emmet County, this Court considered same jurisdictional provision, 31, of the Tax Tri- § bunal Act that is now an issue. Section 31 confers on the Tax jurisdiction Tribunal to review a final decision relating to "equalization, under property tax laws”.
While a literal reading would indicate that Tax Tribunal jurisdiction has over all final deci- sions relating equalization, this Court concluded provision was give intended to the Tax jurisdiction over only intracounty equali- not, zation addition, decisions and intercounty equalization decisions.
This Court considered the historical difference between intracounty equalization intercounty proceedings, the apparent legislative intent to give the Tax Tribunal over matters for- merly heard the State Tax Commission as an appellate body, the lack prior provision of any for administrative review of equaliza- intercounty tion decisions. This Court said that since there had theretofore been administrative review of in- equalization tercounty decisions the Tax Tribunal was confined to reviewing intracounty equaliza- tion.
So, too, here we should construe the 31 lan- § guage giving the Tax Tribunal to re- view a final decision relating "special assess- *65 413 by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. * * * of light tax laws” under
ments challenging of actions treatment the historical maintained were assessments —which special not before the State court and the circuit give intent legislative Commission —and "heard formerly over matters jurisdiction tribunal appellate as an Tax Commission the State by body.”89 Court, effort, of the to distin- opinion in the
The there it County Emmet ground on the guish level of to insert an "additional proposed was endangering process, thereby in the review to function within ability commission’s [state tax] collection of limits established for the the time The Court does persuasive. today taxes”90 is not it inserts a new level of administra- precisely that: special process. assessment tive review not heretofore of a levying was review at the state level to administrative A assess- tribunal. quasi-judicial before (the equalization levy, just intercounty ment in Emmet County), challenged only could be issue in the circuit court. opinion of the Court the "review says will not tribunal collection of taxes
endanger timely orderly in Emmet County”.91 present the risks indicated Those statements are made on faith and without Comm, County 89 After Emmet v State Tax 397 Mich (1976) decided, Legislature, by of the NW2d Department was amendment (see 69), the Tax of Revenue Act fn transferred appealable formerly Tribunal Tax of matters to the Board Appeals. events, grant In all each the Tax Tribunal has challenge formerly administratively appealable. been of matters A administratively levy of a assessment has never been appealable. 90Ante, p fn 22. 91Id. Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. recognition apparent realities of the time the Tax Tribunal or involved review frame the enlarged92 scope consequences of an of review novo) (de right appeal, under the Tax with a Appeals Act, and a consti- to the Court Tribunal tutional *66 right appellate court deter- to have the judgment supported by is sub- mine whether on the whole record. stantial evidence holding jurisdic- In the Tax Tribunal has simply tion, construed the act to the Court has not brought formerly provide in the cir- that actions brought before the Tax cuit court must now be Tribunal. provide It construed the act to has entirely review, kind of de novo re- an different part below. view. See VI danger interposing,
There is much same level, a level of administrative at the state enlarged impair ability of local review will governmental levy units to as assessments have been had this Court construed there would provide for review of the Tax Tribunal Act to intercounty equalization. M Legislature say We do not or think that "the Legislature just It did fine. made a mistake”.93 meaning used words with a tional fixed in the constitu- legal history of this and relied on state meaning. It this Court this Court to discern that that makes a mistake.
Ill "special appears, The term assessments” scope inquiry. narrowly fn 129 The Courts limited See accompanying if and text. opinion argument of this 93 The of the Court characterizes opinion: "Essentially, argument Legislature made a mistake.” is that Ante, p 626. 413 Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. out,94 number of points the Court
opinion laws. That no property tax general in the places assess- "special the words explains why doubt 31 jurisdictional in the included ments” were § Otherwise, thought might have been statement. relating decisions from appeals administrative * * * under property "special assessments of the State laws”, to the subject to the Tax Commission, transferred had not been quasi-judicial and remained the State Tax Commission. review states, agree, and we of the Court opinion [referring provisions these "[bjecause Tax Act and Property in The General assessments chapter on real in other laws collected any do authorize personal property taxation] assessments, refer they must levied under other laws.”95 *67 are levied under assessments Although special laws, laws, property are not tax other laws which B (concerning part provisions” "these [see below] assessments the sale special the collection of and. special nonpayment of assessments) so assessed for property provisions of law which are laws or respecting Decisions property are tax laws. * * * under collection "special tax laws” are to the property of the Tax Tribunal.
A public improvement by A decision to finance a levying and creating special a assessment district The Gen- a is not made under Ante, p accompanying fn 16. fn 16. See text 95Ante, p 637. Wikman v Novi by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. valorem or other ad Act96 Property prop- ©ral provisions of law which are sub- erty tax laws to administration the State Tax Commis- ject by Rather, a pursuant sion. such decision is made authority defining conferred the statutes (home-rule98 counties,97 cities municipal powers seq.; seq. MCL 211.1 et MSA 7.1 et 123.751-123.763; 5.570(21)-5.570(33). MCL MSA 117.4d(1); 5.2077(1). MCL MSA provisions concerning While the home rule act does contain ad taxation, property valorem assessments are not levied "under” provisions. those requires city provide The home rule act that the charter of a for "annually laying collecting sum, except and taxes in a as otherwise provided and law, not to exceed of the assessed 2% value of the real personal property city”, 117.3(g); 5.2073(g), MCL MSA preparation roll, meeting for the times of of the assessment of the roll, 117.3(i); board of review and confirmation of the assessment MCL 5.2073(i). (vote provides MSA increasing 5.2084. people) The act also a means for law”, the rate of taxation "now fixed MCL levying not, however, The decision this assessment was provisions made "under” those of the home rule act but rather under separate provisions of that act and Novi’s charter and ordinance concerning special assessments, 117.4d; MCL MSA 5.2077. Allowing provisions that the of the home rule act referred to above 5) (§§3[g], laws, property putting are 3[i] aside the question "law”, whether a charter or ordinance is a provision assessment was not concerning made under a of law ad property valorem taxes and property thus was not made under laws. act, say provisions, To that the entire home rule all its are provisions regarding tax laws because it contains the rate of ad taxation, requiring city provide valorem a charter to there- process, for and for the times of certain manifestly acts the assessment would anbe incorrect characterization. act, provisions prop- If the home rule act—the entire all its a—is erty provisions requiring city tax law because of the charter to establish a rate of ad valorem taxation and the times of certain acts process, provi- in the assessment then the home rule act and all its they sions—whatever election in fact concern—would like token be an law, public law, law, utility rapid zoning a transit law (The and a civil service law. home rule act authorizes a home-rule time, city and the provide holding "for the manner and means of elections registration electors”, 117.3[c]; 5.2073[c], *68 purchase, operation "public supplying construction and utilities for water, light, heat, power, transportation municipality to the thereof’, 117.4f[3]; 5.2079[3], "rapid the inhabitants MCL MSA transit”, 117.4g; 5.2080, zoning, 117.4i[3]; MCL MSA MCL MSA 5.2082[3],among provisions.) other 413 617 702 Opinion by Dissenting Levin, J. fourth-class),99 townships,100 charter town- governmental (county and other bodies ships,101 commissioners,102 metropolitan districts103 and drain to administrative villages)104 which are the State Tax Commission. supervision by
B authorizing The statutes the establishment finance local im- special assessment districts and the assessments provements levying give assessing authority option often collecting turning either the assessment property roll over to the tax collec- Thus, although special tor.105 assessments are not levied "under laws”, property they may collected under property a tax collector laws.
The Tax Tribunal has said that the State Tax authority supervisory Commission had to exercise control over the of a tax respect- actions collector rapid simply collection of manner provide for the manner of collection which need not be tied to the MCL MSA MCL 11.1261-11.1283. 99 MCL Provisions of the home rule Although MCL MCL MCL MCL MCL 123.757; 104A.2; 5.2770(59); 5.3526(3). transit, because the act as other taxes, 104A.1-104A.5; 68.31-68.35; 41.721-41.737; 42.31; 119.3-119.4; 280.151-280.161, MSA zoning, MSA some of the ad valorem be deemed to be MCL MSA general 5.1854(2); 5.570(27); provide service —and civil 42.31; 5.46(31). MSA MSA 5.2133-5.2134. taxes. MCL also contains MSA MSA taxes, acts, 5.1370(1)-5.1370(5). MSA 280.261-280.283; MCL act, 5.2770(51)-5.2770(67). 5.1854(11-5.1854(5). MCL they 5.46(31); most allow the local 117.4d; regarding 41.397; 41.356; provisions regarding shall be collected 280.265; MSA MCL MSA property elections, MSA assessments — MSA 11.1265 68.32; 5.2585(6), authorizing 5.2597; tax laws. 11.1151-11.1161, MSA public MCL MCL authority ad 5.1370(2); 125.946c; may utilities, valorem (fn 41.729; same not, 61); *69 Wikman v Novi by Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. assessments,106 example for a tax collec- ing special special tor’s refusal to collect a assessment.107 An collector, ad valorem property billing tax when assessment, collecting a un- special functions set forth in the tax procedures property der laws his acts or failure to act regarded have been relating as decisions to under tax laws. property action or non-action of a tax collec-
Accordingly,
board shall
without
board shall authorize and
drain,
affected
statement,
taxing agencies
provision, special
all
is in
record,
ings
certificates, statements,
cuting attorney,
certificates, statements,
subject
ple,
211.37; MSA 7.55.
along
Clinic &
Whether
"The
any
objections
moneys
§
The State Tax Commission has broad
anyway
to be
37 of The General
with the
township,
such
to
county
thereby.
Diagnostic Hospital,
delay report
inspection
paper,
proceeding
corrected,
by
to
verify
moneys
defective,
made to
be
regular
státute, e.g.,
board of commissioners
and tax assessment
and other
whose
If it
raised in
or record is not
assessment
has
for at least
supplied,
raising any
shall
can then be
same,
or that
tax roll of the
papers,
Property
papers
duty
not
require
writing
the several
purposes.
appear
MCL
been had or is in
342 Mich
and if the
it shall be to examine the same and
any proceeding
rolls are often
records,
and records submitted to
or had.
procedural
Tax Act
the defects or omissions of
such
properly
his
to the board that
corrected,
procedures.
It shall hear and
township
townships
opinion
moneys by any taxpayer
It
* * *
certificate, statement,
provides:
may
certified,
We do not contend that when Tribunal decided to Legislature subject Act was enacted the collection special as- relating decisions not deci- sessments to Tax Tribunal review but assessments, levying relating special sions to the and that it therefore made a distinction between is not and collection. The distinction levying at the Legislature result of conscious choice Act but time of the enactment of the Tax Tribunal long ago by made rather follows from choices circumstance Legislature resulting and the had jurisdiction the State Tax Commission never have levying relating but did over decisions 108Ante, p 626. Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. to collection relating over decisions
jurisdiction tax laws. property to the pursuant Legislature’s purpose to trans- Since was over all fer to the Tribunal Commission, business of the State Tax appellate so that the Tax the Tax Tribunal Act was worded would obtain of administra- Tribunal Ad- appeals respecting tive assessments. were, however, limited to appeals ministrative tax laws. The only decisions under respecting special decisions under tax laws concern the collection of assessments. Legislature larger need not have had a decision, legislative made
purpose. long basic local units of ago, government may levy was supervision assessments without state ad valorem tax collection may existing use the machinery, supervision, which is to state collect assessment. The decision in enacted, when the Tax Act was was to do a simply try job (by creating better *71 Tribunal) in prior an area of state involve- ment, expand not to involvement.
Merely part because of the business transferred was the infrequent petition respecting review of a collection, formerly appealable administratively, Legislature need not have intended to trans- form altogether the review of governmental local special decisions to levy by providing an appeal administrative in a at state level relatively large number of cases.
The premise set forth in of the opinion Court, Legislature would not have been 413 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. for review of the providing merely with
content spe- in involved the collection ministerial acts assessments, the difference between overlooks cial of a governing body city of the reviewing decisions public to finance a a drain commissioner or of appor- a assessment improvement reviewing an assessment tioning such to bill and of a tax collector whether decision an assessment or to refuse to do so. collect the different means likely Nor is will, in argued of the different decisions review Court, shop- in forum "result opinion increase of inconsistent ping possibility in decisions similar cases”.109 and of the Tax Tribunal the State Tax Commission to collection does not extend respect with to the whether there is a benefit assessed, the issue which proposed specially litigated is assessment cases. generally the Tax issue that could be raised before only be the regard to collection would one of whether the local unit of rarely litigated with government duly adopted, had accordance roll procedural requirements, required which the tax collector to bill and danger shopping collect.110 The of forum regard inconsistent decisions in to matters of that kind, infrequently which are a matter of serious dispute, is small.
D statute, construing properly In a court looks at con- results which will follow from alternate do not therefore take issue with the structions. We 1 09Ante, p 643.
110See fns 106 and 107. *72 Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. advancing opinion "policy” argu- of Court for for considering, example, ments and whether of of different means review the different decisions with appear be consonant reason. Our difference not concern We both opinion methodology. does gods. pay homage jurisprudential to the same We see different truths. simply
IV Section 41 Act provides Tax Tribunal persons proceed who were theretofore entitled to or "the tax before state commission circuit court” to the "subject determination a matter * * * tribunal’s proceed shall only” (Emphasis supplied.) before tribunal.111
A' For reasons already stated —a decision levying a special assessment is not made "under property challenge laws” —a to a special not a matter "subject the tribunal’s jurisdic- tion”.
B The history and antecedents of the Tax Tribunal Act —consistent with a literal reading 41—§ a legislative indicate intent to divest the circuit court of jurisdiction over matters which could be brought either before "the commission or state the circuit court” (emphasis supplied), mat- which, person legal entity immediately "A before the effective act, proceed date of this sion or to the tribunal’s only was entitled to before the state tax commis circuit court of this state for determination of a matter jurisdiction, provided proceed in section shall 7.650(41). before tribunal.” MCL *73 413 Mich 617
708 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. brought the circuit only which could ters court. Act, a of the Tax Tribunal the enactment
Before from obtaining relief had two means taxpayer An ad valorem tax assessments. adminis- filed with the State Tax could be appeal trative Property 152 of General Commission under § an paid protest, under If the tax was Tax Act.112 for in circuit court could be commenced action The two under 53 of that act.113 remedies refund § could, exclusive; and taxpayers mutually were not did, occasionally pursue both. chal pursued, remedies could be
Although both asserting to ad valorem taxes lenges before invariably valuation were made improper Commission, the courts. The the State Tax a limited review of only courts had exercised any property tax assessments had disavowed excep Almost without power set assessments. had to disturb valuations tion the courts refused would, most, agencies set at set aside proper erroneous palpably reassessment. A could obtain effective taxpayer only final relief before State Commissi on.114
Moran v Grosse Pointe
was
taxpayer’s
paid
decision of the State Tax Commission.
circuit court
raising questions
cases,
Two
We
An action
113
114
[112]
MCL
Section 53 authorized an action for refund of ad valorem
MCL
valuation;
under
Charlotte,
found 17
11 the
211.53;
211.152;
right
protest provided
within
if it served
Inc v
circuit court
refund was not an effective
to a
cases
30
refund
improper
days
Detroit,
which
7.97.
7.210.
Twp,
where
any
gave
payment.
were
317 Mich
assessment or
294 Mich
purpose,
no
the tax
brought
relief
action
248;
275; 293 NW
had
to the
remedy
under
was commenced
was to
26
valuation.
been
NW2d
taxpayer:
§
MSA 7.97.
where
paid pending'
53 for refunds
safeguard
647
763
Of
the issue
Twenty-
(1947);
(1940);
taxes
17
Wikman v Novi
709
Dissenting Opinion
Levin, J.
Rapids,
59;
Rapids
Supply
App
&
Co
Mich
Steel
v Grand
35
Grand
192
(1971);
Detroit,
689;
v
NW2d 376
Sloman-Polk Co
261 Mich
247
NW 740
Detroit,
(1933); Kresge
565;
95
Co v
276 Mich
268
NW
S S
Ironwood,
(1936);
(1915);
(1919);
Mining
668;
Newport
Co v
185
152 NW
Mich
1088
Twp,
Copper Range
209;
Co v
208
175
Adams
Mich
NW 282
Republic Twp,
189;
Cleveland-CliffsIron Co v
196 Mich
163
(1917);
Kingsford,
91;
Kingsford
90
Chemical
v
Mich
NW
NW2d 587
Co
347
78
(1956);
575;
Alpena,
Mill
Co v
Island
Lumber
(1913);
Detroit,
Corp
458;
v
General Discount
306 Mich
NW
NW2d
(1943).
only
extraordinary
involving gross
one
facts
In
case—on
overassess-
taxpayers
judicial
ment —did the
obtain
relief. Helin v Grosse Pointe
(1951).
Twp,
taxpayers
329 Mich
NW2d 338
Even
there
prospect
proceedings
they
faced reassessment and
further
if
hárdly
remedy.
an
wished to contest the
effective
reassessment —
Detroit,
Corp
App 102,
In Mohawk Data Sciences
v
63 Mich
107-
*74
108;
(1975),
Appeals
In and essentially in ad ineffectual jurisdiction circuit court valorem appeals, pur- there was no pose jurisdiction to eliminate circuit court where no judicial remedy parallel had administrative and the court had provided circuit an effective remedy.
Indeed, where an action for refund in a court had an been effective remedy, Legislature, subsequent legislation affecting the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction, continued court although remedy duplicative court was of administrative by review the Tax Tribunal. Court jurisdiction was notwithstanding continued "proliferation” remedies, "problems of forum shopping” and "pos sibility inconsistent decisions”.116 In the final resolution, of the legislative process add ing administrative appeals concerning state taxes formerly by heard the Board of Tax Appeals to the Tribunal, of the Tax Legislature preserved the taxpayer’s alternative judicial rem edy providing taxpayer who an pays asserted deficiency protest under commence may an action for refund in the Court of Claims.117
116Ante, p 628.
amendatory
providing
appeal
act
for
in
in
the Tax Tribunal
Appeals
lieu of
the
remedy
the Board of Tax
and for
the alternative
seq.;
Court
Claims
1980 PA
MCL 205.22 et
MSA
7.657(22)
seq.
remedy
et
repealed by
in the circuit court was
(MCL 206.421;
PA
7.557[1421]), by
169 for income taxes
MSA
1980 PA
(MCL
7.543),
205.72;
for sales taxes
MSA
The §41 court”) or circuit ("before tax commission the state clearly to contests quite refers (emphasis supplied) which, ad valorem taxes concerning brought been could have theretofore uniquely, appeal "before as an administrative either under 152 of The General commission” state tax § "or circuit court” Tax Act Property the’] ['before 53 of that act. paid of taxes under for a refund § challenged levy Persons who theretofore not entitled to proceed assessment were special or circuit court” "before the state commission (emphasis supplied). seeking A owner proceed could challenge levy assessment only in the circuit court.118 41 "imple-
The Court states opinion § jurisdiction over the tribunal’s broad-based mento] previously conducted both before the proceedings Commission and the circuit court”119 State Tax Challenges to of a (emphasis supplied). levying I, 1977, January jurisdiction until of initial was deferred Attorney language General ruled that the effort to Corporation PA 37. fn was clarified See 69. Appeals the Board of Tax abolish Appeal Tax Board because of violation of did succeed republication requirements the re-enactment and of Const art 25. See 69. fn § Appeals operate. Board continued to Its abolition and PA the transfer of its has now been effected 162. single appeal Research fails to disclose a instance an to the levying State Tax from of a Commission Code, seq.; whether under Drain MCL 280.1 et MSA 11.1001 et seq., enabling authorizing villages, townships, or the various acts cities, government levy special counties and other units of local assessments. may The State Tax Commission have exercised over a sought treasurer who refused to collect a assessment or properly collect a fns assessment that had not been levied. See 107. 119Ante, p 641. Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. not, however, special assessment were "previously *77 conducted both before State Tax Commission the circuit court” but only circuit court. quoted
The last statement in the opinion of the Court was the of the predicate argument, "[be- cause the jurisdiction tribunal has over matters court, heard in circuit formerly its jurisdiction is not limited matters heard the State Tax reasoning Commission. This is particularly appli- assessments, cable to special because many of the challenging special actions assessments were heard in circuit court”.120 argument that ignores everything "previously conducted both before the State Tax Commission and the circuit court” was formerly heard in the State Tax Commission as as formerly well heard in the circuit court. It does not (appeals follow matters from as- levies) not sessment heard in formerly the State Commission, matters which formerly could court, only be heard in the circuit are now within the jurisdiction of the Tax Tribunal be- simply cause they formerly were heard in the circuit Only court. "previously matters conducted both before the State Tax Commission and circuit court” are within the exclusive of the Tax Tribunal.
V This Court has said that presumed, is reviewing a claim that a statute has divested original court of general of a mea- authority sure of jurisdiction, its the court retains its
[120] Id. 413 Mich Dissenting Opinion Levin, J.
authority.121 if divestiture It assumed that Legislature will ex- is intended nothing press leave clearness and itself "with uncertainty”.122 play is a There of doubt rule the parallel applicable construction strict language of here, where, it is claimed derogation jurisdiction of the statute is circuit court.123 already length, an intent stated at
For reasons
jurisdiction over
of its
the circuit court
divest
enjoin
of a
the collection
to set aside and
an action
special
ground
that no
on the
improvement
has
benefit will be conferred
Act in unam
the Tax Tribunal
stated in
been
* * * leav[ing]
biguous terms,
clearness
"with
*78
nothing
uncertainty”.
play
An
of doubt and
general jurisdiction must be indi
to divest
intent
cated with
certainty
greater clarity
than
and
is
by
evidenced
this act.124
121
dealing
to affect
"In
with statutes intended to affect or claimed
general
original
of
the
authority
of
in courts
and
continuance
always recognized
principle
of
construction
the law has
jurisdiction.
favor the retention of
which served to
Liability Co
Motor
Atlas
of
suppose
strued;
plish
to
express
doubt and
tries,
Statutes in
124
[122]
"Whatever
123
authorize
Paley
The Tax
Crane
Inc,
Industries, Inc,
Legislature
Co,
authority,
themselves with clearness
370 Mich
uncertainty.”
goal
v
v
v
statutes which seek to divest
Coca Cola
Reeder,
presumptions
interruptions
Baker,
derogation
7.650(21),
save
Mich
Legislature,
was
* * *
400, 402;
under clear mandate of law.
370 Mich
28
152;
probably
Co,
is a
Crane v
Mich
and
389 Mich
are
"quasi-judicial agency”,
22
and the
VI Today’s holding, the Tax juris- Tribunal has diction, significant works a substantive enlarge- ment of the scope of review of special assessments. It does not merely change the forum in which review will occur. The enlarged scope of review provides additional opportunities for objectors employ delaying resulting tactics with increases the cost of local improvements if bonds to pay for the cost of the improvement cannot during be sold litigation. pendency
In circuit court challenges cities, levied by drain commissioners and other governmental authorities, local the courts of this state have confined the judicial inquiry to the lawfulness of the special assessment and whether there is a benefit and have re- generally fused to review the apportionment of benefits.125
Section 35 of the Tax Tribunal Act provides that given judicial powers nal the full of a court its members would have appointed, to be elected creating Tax Tribunal a tending goal rather than to defeat the body specialized, expert experience; with and that were the court, its review of valuations and allocations under §28, laws would be limited Const art "fraud, adoption review for instead of the wrong principles”, error of law the being agency, contemplated Tax Tribunal the final constitution, judicial before Stanley, such limited review. Tunstall Opper, Taxation, Wayne Rev, pp & (1975). State and Local L 653-654 Equitable powers, power injunction sought such as the to enter the case, judicial in it powers. are The Tax Tribunal has concluded that power provide does not equitable have the remedy: an *79 changes "While statutory recent promul- law and court rules gated pursuant many thereto have eliminated of the formalities separation associated with the historic equity, of law and we do not changes believe these reaching have been so far as to extend the availability of powers, equitable beyond remedies such as actions courts class general jurisdiction, traditionally possessed equitable which have agencies and into administrative without such extension being specifically governing operation enumerated in the statutes agency question.” Twp, supra, Calder v DeWitt 1 MTTR 207. through See accompanying fns 129 132 and text. 413 Mich Opinion by Dissenting Levin, J. origi- shall be the tribunal proceeding before
"[a] considered de and should be independent nal and novo”.126 decision, persons protest- of today’s
As a result the home-rule levied under ing special assessments act, enabling legisla- other the Drain Code or cities a Tax Tribunal redetermination tion can obtain "original”, in an of benefits apportionment proceeding contrary "de novo” "independent”, — the Drain Code and to well-established the sense of regarding special assessments precedents judicial under appellate right, review as of generally —with Act, Appeals. Tax Tribunal Court relating decision of the Tax Tribunal Because a is, agree, we all not a relating appellate to valuation”127 "decision include, mini would constitutional review mum, the Tax Tribu a determination whether material "supported by competent, nal’s decision evidence on the whole record”.128 substantial 7.650(35). independent and shall- be considered de novo.” MCL [126] "(i) A proceeding before the tribunal shall be 205.735; original tion, Act Act committee on assessment. dispute 7.650(35). determination of "true cash value” for ad valorem read: poses”. purposes. See Const allocation board on the "Allocation”, "Valuation”, (see requiring protest Const prior "fixing See fn floor of the constitutional convention before revision concerns the "valuation” of fn language adopted No board of review is 66). the value of described changes style 33. it (see art appears appears 1963, fn to the board of review where made § drafting, 33) pursuant 28. See fn 31 for text. art from the from context and on the floor of the Constitutional Conven- 9, § the committee on refers to decisions of the 3. See also 35 of the Tax Tribunal provided language to the property, Property § of the clause as history, for protest of a style and Tax Limitation an assessment refers to the property tax county tax drafting adopted pur- *80 v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J.
A delays judicial pro- In an effort to avoid the ceedings, provides proceedings the Drain Code subject to establish a drain shall be to review on days in the circuit court certiorari within ten after copy of the final order is filed in the office of the and, drain commissioner if no certiorari brought prescribed, within the time "the drain legally established, shall be deemed to have been legally levied, and the taxes therefor and the legality of said drain and the taxes therefor shall questioned any not thereafter be suit at or law equity”.129 Court has
This
held that review on certiorari
complaints concerning
appor
limited and that
tionment of the benefit are not
review
(actual
proceedings;
certiorari
absent fraud
or con
structive) the determination of the board consti
probate
apportionment
tuted
court130for the
Generally,
equity
of benefits is final.131
a court of
only
will intervene
there is no
when it is demonstrated that
benefit at all or that the assess-
Hinkley
Fellows,
Hudlemyer
MCL
280.521;
MSA
MSA
MCL
280.123;
11.1581.
11.1157;
Clinton
11.1072(1);
Fuller v
see See MCL
MCL
280.122;
280.243;
11.1151;
11.1563;
Twp
169 Mich
v
MSA
MCL
MSA
Bishopp,
MCL
280.161;
v
v
280.156-280.157;
Dickinson,
MSA
280.158;
11.1521;
11.1123;
MSA
MCL
Teachout,
MCL
280.88;
66, 70,
Cockerill,
152 Mich
MSA 11.1161. See also MCL
11.1122;
280.577;
280.155;
11.1243;
MSA
MCL
MCL
MSA
143 Mich
150 Mich
ment zation.132 in actions so held similarly has
This Court complaining in the circuit court brought units of and other local cities *81 will equity a court of The rule is that government. "weigh bene- judgment its not substitute truth, weighed”, to fits, if, there are benefits be 486 447; 100 NW2d Plymouth, v 358 Mich Fluckey there is an (1960), only intervene where and will Brill Grand supra; v Fluckey, of benefit. absence John- (1970); 216; 174 Rapids, 383 Mich NW2d (1977). Inkster, v 263; 258 NW2d son 401 Mich pro- that if certiorari provides The Drain Code brought proceedings are and the are "sus- ceedings tained, bringing certiorari shall be party thereof, if not they for the costs liable sustained, making application for the parties Presumably, drain shall be liable for the costs”.133 super- the Drain Code now also provision of Tax upon seded substitution review having scrapped certiorari review. This Court concerning Code judicial sections Drain find it difficult may review and the time for review has justify holding a the Tax Tribunal a authority apply provision applicable a procedure which this Court has ruled has been eliminated the Tax Tribunal Act. by
B
practice
Under
prevailing
adop-
before the
Meyering
Spencer,
708-709;
See
Land Co v
273 Mich
263
237
(1935);
Millar,
Twp
135, 142;
NW 777
(1932);
Lake
v
257 Mich
NW
683, 693,
County
Blades v Genesee
Drain Dist No
375 Mich
(1965).
694;
But a owner who of benefits a challenge apportionment probate a court under board constituted Code, formerly Drain who was limited to certiorari court, challenge who could a review circuit local assessment made if he could city only show an absence of benefit made, not lawfully
assessment was will be able to de novo review of the independent, obtain an apportionment benefits as well as of claim no at all. there is benefit Substituting Tax Tribunal review for circuit reduce, likely court review is not and is more *82 facilitate, appeals further to the Court of likely this Appeals and to Court. Decisions of the Tax Tribunal related to valuation or allocation must, standard, under the minimum constitutional Appeals be reviewed the Court of to determine whether are they supported by competent, mate- rial and substantial evidence on the whole record.
Providing for apportionment review of of bene- profound fits works a in change appellate procedures respecting decisions drain and levying other local assessments. The cost of most improvements local through is funded bond issues. The pendency litigation prevent the sale of may Providing bonds. litigation additional avenues for may thus result significant the sale of delays bonds with attendant additional construction other costs. 413 Mich Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. the speedy desired facilitate Legislature and to projects protect of drain
construction litigation by imposing tight unfounded against on review appellate time limits and restrictions There for the assessment costs. by providing adopting that the Tax suppose no reason to problems in the adminis- Act to address Tribunal the Legislature of the tax laws tration scope alter the of review and to work wished so change levying dramatic and collec- such a tion of assessments. case, if it expects
In the instant
Novi
that
suc-
Court
that
the Tax
persuading
ceeds in
Tribu-
it
prevail
nal has
will
because
not commenced before the Tax
this action was
provided
time limit
30-day
Tribunal within
filing
appeal.134
an
In a case where the property
seeking
spe-
are
to have the amount of a
owners
reapportioned,
may
day
cial benefit
cities
rue
on
established that
owners
which
was
de novo review of
right
independent
have
apportionment
of benefits.
VII
opinion
argues
of the Court
that because
decided,
Appeals
the Court of
has consistently
beginning
years ago
opinion,135
five
in a conclusory
7.650(35).
134 SeeMCL
This section of the Tax Tribu
Act,
provides
jurisdic
nal
tion of the Tax
as last amended
1976 PA
dispute”
"in
an assessment
shall be invoked
year
"not
later than
June
of the tax
involved” but
in all
filing
days
"other matters” the time for
is 30
after the final decision.
Only
appeal
may
an
from an ad valorem assessment must or
year
filed "not
assessments are
are
later than June 30
If
involved”.
Tribunal,
they
to the
*83
the
30-day
applicable
to the
time limit
"all
other matters”.
135
Huron,
273;
Corp
App
See Edros
v Port
78 Mich
the enactment sections, judicial and the decision is of the other not of Appeals of and this Court. Court awaiting decision argued other cases There are disposed by could readily in this Court which need is to look at the if all that we to do this Court judicial pronouncement time since a passage Court) but of this (not and Appeals of the Court of respond. the failure to Legislature’s VIII to an opinion "initially” The of the Court refers filing the of a opinion preceded circulated which of this responsive opinion opinion137 the writer opinion and that the filed addressed initially states argued parties. the and the issues briefed argued by parties An issue briefed and was argu- In jurisdiction. whether the circuit court has issue, the other ing plain- the Wikmans and proceeding challenging tiffs contended that a equity of a levy special assessment sounds to have juris- therefore the circuit court continues advanced They argument diction. did not make the opinion concerning meaning "prop- limiting tax laws” erty as words the Tax Tribunal. say
One can the issue was raised or one can say that it was not.
The filed as did the initially opinion provided, Court of Appeals, for remand of this cause to Tax is that Implicit Tribunal. in that decision Tax initially Tribunal has filed jurisdiction.
137Ante, p 625. v Novi Wikman Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. opinion opinion so declared of the Court so declares.138 (as opinion Court relies did the opinion)
initially filed on decisions of the Court of Appeals declaring juris- Tribunal has of that diction cites decisions Court as authori- ignored proposed To tative. have action to to the remand and the other Tax Tribunal because the Wikmans
plaintiffs argu- did make the *85 jurisdiction ment for circuit court opinion, advanced in this only argument but the the circuit jurisdiction equity, court has as a court of would "precedent” body by be to add to that of default. jurisdiction of The the circuit court over practical then, matter, assessments would aas be by litigants ousted the consent of the in this case. cause, The decision of Court in this this remand- ing by Tribunal, the cause to the Tax will be read by by Tribunal, courts, the Tax Court of the circuit the Appeals dispositive question as of the of challenging whether an action a assess- levy may brought or, ment indeed, must be before the or whether it. can continue to be brought and maintained in the circuit court. obligation, construing
This Court an has when a concerning statute the of the circuit court tribunal, and an administrative to consider language all the of the statute —in the instant "property although case, the term the laws”— language. briefs of counsel fail to the advert all presenta- The Court is not limited counsels’ tions. litigation ordinary
This is not the in which 138 Ante, p 626. 413 Mich Opinion Dissenting Levin, J. of counsel omissions upon decision
Court can rest
litigation.
in the course
parties
or
the
persons
to the other
responsibility
has a
Court
matter,
will,
governed by
practical
who
decision.
the
circuit
to the
goes
The issue
It cannot be waived
and the Tax Tribunal.
courts
Indeed,
the defen-
their counsel.139
parties
or
treasurer,
not
dants,
its
did
raise
Novi and
until after
the trial and
issue
jurisdictional
Appeals.140
the Court of
appeal
matter was on
meaning
"property
question
litigants
and amicus
posed
could be
laws”
Michigan
invited from
Associa
briefs could be
Counties, Michigan Municipal League,
tion of
Association,
county
drain
Townships
Michigan
deciding
ap
others before
commissioners
I
question.
favor that
pearing to decide
would
expressed
I
agree
course because
with
view
Court
that we should
decide
opinion
providing
opportunity
without
an
question
long
presentation. Despite
delay
*86
adversary
issue,
deciding
greater
importance
is of far
that
it be
than
it be decided
correctly
decided
that
today.141
139
(1935).
Co,
62;
Mfg
v
Tribunal parties addressed "a matter not raised upon appeal”). at the circuit level or 140See fns 1 and 3. 141 Comm, p post, City Wayne County v Treasurer Drain Romulus (with 728, opinions parties be to the could released revision of circulated question) jurisdictional to reserve the Tax Tribunal Act and briefing argument need not await further the instant cause may agree pleaded Romulus be because we all maintained in circuit court even if the Tax Tribunal that claim generally has jurisdiction. v 725 Novi Wikman Dissenting .Opinion Levin, J.
IX judge The circuit found that the Wikmans and special plaintiffs the other would receive no benefit proposed improvements Road from the and to Taft over enjoyed by public at above those large.142 cases, a this Court held In number has finding equita- a entitles such owners although they relief a ble from statutorily prescribed procedures failed to observe contesting assessment.143 although necessary If it were as we decision— would construe the Tax Tribunal Act it is not—we agree would nevertheless be inclined to with the opinion equitable remedy of the Court an not available in the . instant case.144 general
The
rule heretofore has been that courts
judgment
governmental
will not review the
of a
authority establishing
assessment district
apportionment
benefits,
or the
but
that such
finding
governmental
deference to the
of a
author-
ity
equitable
is not warranted and
relief is avail-
able
where
owner shows that
governmental authority acted without a factual
predicate
authority
lawful
in the ab-
—without
sence of
benefit.145
holding,
opinion
Court,
the Tax Tribunal has
means that re-
142See fn 2.
143
Wyzlic
Ironwood,
87;
See fn 132. See also
v
365 Mich
112 NW2d
(1961).
Legislature may
powerless
abrogate
equitable
Treasurer,
Twp
of the circuit court. See Mathias v Owosso
(1888).
5;Mich
Judge,
73
75 Mich
NW
Cf.
v
Circuit
Brown Kalamazoo
(1889).
view de novo hearing,146 original independent, in an proceeding. Tax in a quasi-judicial obtainable approach reviewing its presumably will Tribunal about ade- with care. Concern responsibility they where are of factual determinations quacy city conducted upon hearing a made authority governmental levying other provide to a basis for likely is not assessment intervention. equitable it need to any does there is appear
Nor in order to collection enjoin remedy. While the Tax Tribu- adequate an provide ad valorem requires Act payment nal hearing, to a there is no precondition taxes as a for other matters within Tax requirement such no Plaintiffs have need jurisdiction.147 Tribunal’s relief their prop- unless temporary injunctive for sold, to before final decision of the is about erty therefrom, appeals on any Tax Tribunal A nonpayment assessment. favorable appeal the Tax Tribunal or on would decision against permanent injunction have the effect of a of the special collection assessment.
There is no need to decide this case whether a action can equity class be maintained enjoin assessment. This is not a class action. Plaintiffs, homes, persons owning separate it joined together bring ap- this action. While pears required that each owner may be pay proceeding commence a before Tax $50 Tribunal, has not been asserted circumstances the instant case the accompanying fn 126 and See text. 205.743(2); 7.650(43)(2). *88 Wikman v Novi Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J. remedy for that reason inadequate. In Romulus City Treasurer v Wayne Comm’r, County Drain post, p decided today, explore we the class question. action
We would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the cause to it for considera- tion of the other issues raised by the city’s appeal and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal.
Kavanagh, J., Levin, concurred with J.