Whether food stamps constitute an “asset” for purposes of calculating the poverty exemption from property taxes on a principal residence; MCL 211.7u; The asset test; The ejusdem generis statutory construction doctrine; State Tax Commission (STC); Tax Tribunal (TT)

Holding that the STC and TT’s determination that food stamps constitute an asset was legally erroneous, the court reversed the TT’s final opinion and judgment denying petitioner the poverty exemption for the 2020 property taxes on her home. The STC bulletin addressing the application of MCL 211.7u was not binding and relying on it was erroneous. Absent “a legislative definition of the term ‘asset,’ the dictionary definition of the term” should have been consulted. Applying that definition, respondent-City’s “characterization of food stamps as an ‘asset’ is contrary to the defined term.” Further, the STC bulletin and the City’s asset list violated “the interpretative doctrine ejusdem generis.” The list included “tangible items or items of monetary value such as homes, buildings, vehicles, jewelry, bank accounts, loans, insurance payments, inheritances, and items received in lieu of wages. But the last item referring to federal non-cash benefits such as food stamps is not of the same kind as the other examples proffered by the STC. Food stamps cannot be sold or leveraged contrary to the terms of the program because of criminal penalties and fines.” Thus, the City erred in concluding that “it could include food stamps as an asset for purposes of calculating the poverty exemption.” The TT’s affirmance of the City’s “decision constituted an error of law.”