Taxable value (TV); MCL 211.27; Increase in the TV for tax year 2017 by a sum greater than the product of 1.05 times the TV; Forest Hills Coop v Ann Arbor; MCL 211.27a; "Addition"; MCL 211.34d(b)(iii); Indirect costs; Effect of a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA); Demolition costs; Inclusion of the general contractor's profit in the cost calculation; Functional & external obsolescence; Valuation methods; "True cash value"; MCL 211.27(1) 

The court held that the TT violated MCL 211.27 when it increased the TV of the property at issue for the 2017 tax year by a sum greater than the product of 1.05 the TV for the 2016 tax year. Thus, it remanded for modification of the TV for the 2017 tax year. It also directed the TT to correct an error by subtracting demolition costs from the land value. But the TT properly included in its cost calculation indirect costs associated with obtaining financing, and its decision to give more weight to respondent’s appraisal expert’s (E) analysis as to the effect of a LURA on the TCV was supported by substantial evidence. Further, it was not error to include the general contractor’s profit in its cost calculation, and petitioner did not meet its burden as to its obsolescence arguments. As to the TV increase, the court noted that the TV of the property for the 2016 tax year “was $12,920.797.  Multiplied by 1.05, the product is $13,566,836.85.” The TT’s imposition of a TV of $14,700,000 exceeded the statutory limit, unless additions were made in 2016. The TT made no findings as to additions in 2016. Respondent relied “on an isolated statement by petitioner suggesting that construction was completed in 2016.” However, the court found that there was no evidence of construction in 2016. Petitioner observed that E did not make any findings of new construction in 2016, citing his report, which included “a chart indicating that each of the three sections of the” property was 100% completed as of 10/31/15. E’s report also included a table summarizing construction pay data as of 10/31/15. E testified that a specific statement was the final statement he saw. “He acknowledged that the table in his report indicated that construction on the entire property was complete as of” 10/31/15. There was no evidence of any construction in 2016, and respondent’s own evidence indicated that there were no additions or construction in 2016. Further, the TT’s final opinion did “not reference any additions in 2016 to justify an increase in TV in excess of the 1.05 multiplier limitation.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.