Request for an ad valorem tax exemption under MCL 211.7o(1) or (5); Whether petitioner was a “charitable institution”; Wexford Med. Group v. City of Cadillac; Baruch SLS, Inc. v. Tittabawassee Twp.; OCLC Online Computer Library Ctr. v. City of Battle Creek; Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) v. Lansing Twp.; Distinguishing Kalamazoo Nature Ctr. v. Cooper Twp. & Moorland Twp. v. Ravenna Conservation Club, Inc.; Tax Tribunal (TT)

The court held that petitioner-UPLC was not entitled to a tax exemption under MCL 211.7o(1) or (5) because it did not qualify as a charitable institution given that the property at issue “was not used or offered for the benefit of the general public or an indefinite number of persons.” Thus, the court affirmed the TT’s order granting respondent-township summary disposition. UPLC, a nonprofit organization with federal tax-exempt status, sought an ad valorem tax exemption for approximately 600 acres of property that provides a home for bald eagles, loons, and moose, as well as vegetative species. “The public was allowed to engage in ‘nondestructive activities’ within” the property, including bird watching, cross country skiing, hiking, and snowshoeing, during daylight hours on existing trails. The court noted that in MUCC, the Michigan Supreme Court recently “held that a conservation club, situated on five acres, was not a charitable institution because the benefits it provided were not for an indefinite number of persons.” The court found MUCC “directly analogous.” It concluded that petitioner failed to satisfy Wexford factors 2, 3, and 4, which the TT “correctly identified as overlapping. Petitioner did not partake in, or offer, activities on or usage of the subject property for the benefit of the general public or an indefinite number of people. Although the property was nominally and legally open to the general public, the record demonstrates that the general public had restrictions on visiting the property that others, particularly the adjacent property owners, did not. The evidence from UPLC’s representatives strongly indicate that visiting the property without prior authorization was restricted and difficult.” Although some of the restrictions were “due to the remoteness of the property and the need to conserve the land, UPLC could have remedied this issue by hosting additional educational programs and further interacting with other local organizations. Yet, it had not done so, and it provided no adequate reason for not doing so beyond noting that it had only recently acquired the property.” While there were some differences between UPLC and the organization in MUCC, “notably that UPLC did not nominally or legally restrict the access to its property to only members, the organization in MUCC offered additional activities and educational events to the general public."