Ad valorem property tax assessment appeals; Whether the Tax Tribunal (TT) properly valued the owner-occupied properties at issue as vacant and available rather than occupied; Review of TT decisions; Briggs Tax Serv., LLC v. Detroit Pub. Sch.; "Competent, material, and substantial evidence"; Meijer, Inc. v. City of Midland; Drew v. Cass Cnty.; Burden of proving the "true cash value" (TCV); President Inn Props., LLC v. City of Grand Rapids; Detroit Lions, Inc. v. City of Dearborn; Const. 1963, art. 9, § 3; Meadowlanes Ltd. Dividend Hous. Ass'n v. City of Holland; The three common approaches for determining TCV; Great Lakes Div. of Nat'l Steel Corp. v. City of Ecorse; MCL 211.27(1); Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Independence Twp.; MCL 211.27(5); "Present economic income"; "Existing use"; Whether the success of the businesses operating on the properties and the fact they had no intent to close their doors was relevant in determining the TCV; Safran Printing Co. v. Detroit; "Highest and best use" (HBU); Washtenaw Cnty. v. State Tax Comm'n; Perry v. Big Rapids; The distinct concepts of "fair market value" ("value-in-exchange") and "value to the owner" ("value-in-use"); First Fed. S&L Ass'n of Flint v. City of Flint; Appraisal methodology relied on by the TT; Adequacy of an expert appraiser's knowledge of the properties and the neighborhoods; Witness credibility determinations; The appraiser's "sales-comparison" approach; General and specific challenges to the appraiser's comparables; The appraiser's "income" approach

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the TT properly valued the fee simple interest in both properties at issue and affirmed the TT's rulings in favor of the petitioners. The properties at issue were two "big box" retail stores. In Docket No. 314111, the property was an operating Lowe's store, and in Docket No. 314301, the property was an operating Home Depot store. The central issue on appeal was whether the TT properly valued "the owner-occupied properties as vacant and available, rather than occupied." The fact that the properties were owner-occupied was uncontested. Since TCV is determined at the time of assessment, "the assessor shall consider the 'present economic income'" for leased or rented property at that time. In light of the "plain and unambiguous statutory language, if a property is not being leased at the time of the assessment, then it has no present economic income to be considered." Thus, the TT "did not make an error of law or apply a wrong legal principle by not considering the present economic income, nor did it 'ignor[e] reality,' as respondents contend, because these owner-occupied properties did not have any present economic income pursuant to MCL 211.27(5)." Further, in both cases, the TT relied on the taxpayers' appraisals, "which based the valuation of the property predominantly on the sales-comparison approach analysis consisting of comparable sales of existing big box stores that were vacant and available." Thus, the TT "considered the existing use of the properties as big box retail stores." The court also concluded that valuing the properties "as vacant and available for sale, as opposed to occupied, constituted a proper valuation of the fee simple interest. Because these properties were owner-occupied at the time of assessment and because MCL 211.27(1) requires that TCV be based upon the 'the usual selling price . . . at the time of assessment,' the interest to be valued was the fee simple interest, which is the value of the property when sold unencumbered, as opposed to the leased fee interest, which is the value of the property sold with a lease in place." By "valuing the properties as big box stores that were vacant and available, rather than as occupied properties," the TT properly valued the fee simple interest "by considering the existing use of the properties in compliance with the plain language of the statute." The court noted that "whether the businesses operating on the properties were successful and had no intention of closing their doors is not relevant to determining the TCV of the property." As to the TT's determination of the HBU, respondents' conceptualization of the properties' HBU - as a Lowe's and Home Depot store - made the determination of TCV dependent upon the identity of the property owner. However, pursuant to case law, "HBU, upon which a TCV determination is made, cannot be user or owner specific."