Dispute as to the true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), & taxable value (TV) of a residential property; Standing; The Tax Tribunal’s (TT) jurisdiction to address economic-condition-factor (ECF) issues; Burden of proof as to ECF neighborhoods; MCL 205.737(3)

The court found that petitioners’ standing argument was misplaced, and that the TT addressed and decided their issues as to the valuation of their property, including their challenge to the establishment of the property’s ECF neighborhood. Further, the court held that “MCL 205.737(3) does not place a burden of proof on the assessing agency with regard to justifying the ECF applied to a property as part of the initial assessment process.” They appealed the TT’s judgment as to the TCV, SEV, and TV of their residential property, contending that it was overvalued due to the manner in which respondent-city created ECF neighborhoods in the city. “ECFs are used as part of the cost-less-depreciation mass-appraisal technique to adjust costs as listed in the Michigan Assessor’s Manual to local conditions. Calculation and application of ECFs requires the grouping of properties into various ECF neighborhoods.” On appeal, the court noted it could not find error as to their standing issue because the TT did not determine that they lacked standing to challenge the ECF as applied to their property. In its final judgment, the TT held that they failed to provide any proof that their property’s “ECF neighborhood was improperly established.” Likewise, while they asserted the TT erred in concluding that it lacked authority over issues related to the establishment of ECF neighborhoods, the TT “made no such holding.” It permitted them to present their case that the ECF neighborhood for their “property was invalid and resulted in an inflated valuation” and it concluded that they “failed to show any errors in the creation or application of the ECF or any overvaluation of the” property. Finally, the court found that their reading of MCL 205.737(3) – that respondent had the burden of proof to justify the basis for the ECF applied to their property – was “untenable.” It noted that petitioners bear the burden of proof as to TCV. “It follows that, because TCV is calculated using the ECF, the petitioner has the burden of proof when contesting issues related to ECFs.” Thus, the TT did not err in allocating the burden of proof. Affirmed.