Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (EMPP) tax exemption; MCL 211.9m(2); MCL 211.9m(2)(a) & (2)(c); MCL 211.19(2); MCL 211.9m(3); Whether filing incorrect forms was a qualified error within the meaning of MCL 211.53b; MCL 211.53b(8)(h) & (g); Due process; Procedural safeguards; The Tax Tribunal’s (TT) subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 205.735a

The court affirmed the TT’s order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2) in favor of respondent-Township, holding that respondent’s assessing official satisfied the statutory notice requirement as to petitioner’s claim for an EMPP tax exemption. Petitioner asserted, among other things, that its claim of EMPP “tax exemption was improperly denied because it received inadequate notice of the denial[.]” Petitioner argued that “the assessor was required under the provisions of MCL 211.19, MCL 211.9m, and MCL 211.9n to provide notice that it denied petitioner’s EMPP tax exemption, and that because no such notice was given, respondent failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The essence of petitioner’s claim is that respondent had a duty to notify petitioner that they filed the wrong claim form to secure an EMPP tax exemption.” While MCL 211.9m(3) and its companion statute “require that the assessor notify the taxpayer if it denies the taxpayer’s EMPP tax exemption claim . . . these provisions are only triggered when the taxpayer timely files the form claiming the exemption. In this case, because the proper form was not timely filed, these provisions—including the contained notice requirements—were not triggered, and do not apply.” The record indicated that “the assessing official complied with requirements MCL 211.19(2)(a) and (b), by sending forms that included the required notice.” Specifically, form L-4175 clearly stated, “in bold type: ‘NOTICE: DO NOT USE THIS FORM TO CLAIM AN EXEMPTION AS ELIGIBLE MANUFACTURING PERSONAL PROPERTY (EMPP) PURSUANT TO MCL 211.9m AND MCL 211.9n. To claim an exemption for EMPP, file Form 5278 with the local assessor where the personal property is located no later than’” 2/20/19. This satisfied the notice requirement of MCL 211.19(a). While petitioner contended that respondent did not “satisfy the requirement because it did not notify petitioner of its denial after the forms were filed[,]” this essentially added “a requirement that does not exist in any of the applicable statutes.”