Petition seeking a reduction of a property’s taxable value (TV) to zero; Whether the lease of the property constituted a “transfer of ownership” to the State under MCL 211.27a(6)(g) & exempted it from property taxes under MCL 211.7l; Whether the property is “public property”; MCL 18.1222; “Belonging to the State”; Michigan Tax Tribunal (TT); Administrative law judge (ALJ); General Property Tax Act (GPTA)

The court held that the TT correctly granted respondent-township summary disposition because petitioner did not establish that the property was “public property belonging to the state” under MCL 211.7l. Petitioner requested that the TT reduce the property’s TV to zero, arguing that the lease constituted a transfer of ownership to the State under MCL 211.27a(6)(g), and that the property was therefore exempt from property taxes under MCL 211.7l. The TT adopted the ALJ’s construction of the phrase “belonging to” in MCL 211.7l and concluded that the property did not belong to the State and that petitioner was not entitled to an exemption for the 2019 tax year. On appeal, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the property qualified for the exemption because the lease constituted a “transfer of ownership” under the GPTA, because the State was the “equitable” owner under the lease, and because the State possessed and occupied the property and used it for a public purpose. “Under the plain language of MCL 18.1222, property . . . may be deemed ‘public property’ that is exempt under the GPTA, without regard to whether it ‘belongs to’ the State, if certain conditions are met.” Those conditions were not met by the lease, which “neither requires the State to pay any taxes on the property nor requires that the State reimburse petitioner for any tax payments.” As such, the property was “not exempt from taxation by virtue of MCL 18.1222.” Further, although petitioner argued “that MCL 211.7l and MCL 18.1222 are ‘alternative paths to tax exemption,’ MCL 18.1222 expressly states that it applies to the entirety of the GPTA, including MCL 211.7l.” Thus, because MCL 18.1222 “does not itself provide a path to exemption, petitioner must still satisfy all requirements for exemption under MCL 211.7l.” And even if the property “were deemed to be public property, petitioner must still demonstrate that it constitutes property ‘belonging to’ the State.” It could not. Even if “belonging to” encompasses “equitable ownership, the facts that the purchase option in the lease is not binding, that the State is not obligated to pay taxes, and that petitioner otherwise held itself out as the owner tend to show that the State was not an equitable owner.” Moreover, petitioner did not file the proper “deed or memorandum of conveyance or inform the local assessing officer by registered mail of any acquisition of the property by the State. Strictly construed in favor of the taxing authority, the property does not meet all of the requirements of MCL 211.7l and petitioner” was not entitled to the exemption. Finally, the TT did not err by denying its motion for leave to file a reply brief and motion for reconsideration. Affirmed.