The General Property Tax Act (GPTA); Exemptions; Qualified Agricultural Exemption (QAE); MCL 211.7ee(1) & (2); Effect of parcels qualifying as “agricultural” under MCL 211.34c; “Agricultural operation” (MCL 211.34c(2)(a)(ii)(G)); “Qualified agricultural property” (MCL 211.7dd(d)); “Agricultural use” (MCL 324.36101(b)); “Farming operations”; The Right to Farm Act (RTFA); MCL 286.472(b); Whether the GPTA & RTFA should be read in pari materia; Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT)

The court held that competent, material, and substantial evidence supported the MTT’s finding that only parts of petitioner-Blake’s Farm’s parcels qualified as agricultural property entitled to a QAE. Further, “the MTT did not misapply the law or adopt a wrong principle by applying the definitions set forth in the GPTA and not relying upon the definitions in the RTFA.” Thus, the court affirmed the MTT’s ruling that the parcels were only entitled to a partial QAE under GPTA § 7ee. They were “classified as agricultural and contain an apple orchard. In addition, Blake’s Farm operates a farm market, a year-round restaurant, and a gift shop; hosts seasonal events throughout the year; stores equipment, packs and cans apples for sale, and stores cider for sale.” The court first noted that petitioner seemed to suggest it was “entitled to a 100% QAE under § 7ee(2) so long as its parcels qualify as ‘agricultural’ under MCL 211.34c. However, MCL 211.34c requires that the property (1) be qualified agricultural property, and (2) that it be classified as agricultural under MCL 211.34c. Thus, merely being classified as agricultural does not warrant a 100% QAE.” Given that the GPTA does not define “farming operations,” petitioner argued the court should “adopt the definition of ‘farm operations’ as set forth in the RTFA.” The court disagreed, noting that by “its express language the definition of ‘farm operation’ in MCL 286.472 is limited to that term as it is used in the RTFA.” It also rejected petitioner’s contention that the GPTA and RTFA should be read in pari materia. While “both the RTFA and § 7ee of the GPTA refer to agriculture, it cannot be said that they relate to the same subject or share a common purpose.” It found that resolving the appeal turned “on whether the parcels are qualified agricultural property as that term is defined in MCL 211.7dd(d).” It noted that expressly excluded from the definition “is ‘[p]roperty used for commercial storage, commercial processing, commercial distribution, commercial marketing, or commercial shipping operations or other commercial or industrial purposes . . . .’” The MTT determined “that the various buildings and structures on the two parcels of land owned by Blake’s Farm were being used for a ‘commercial or industrial purpose.’” The court noted that respondent’s evidence as to “the existence of the various buildings and structures, as well as the uses that could be inferred from the evidence, was unrebutted” before the MTT.