Tax Tribunal’s (TT) dismissal for failure to proceed; MCL 205.737(3); President Inn Props, LLC v Grand Rapids; TT’s duty to independently determine true cash value (TCV); MCL 211.27; MCL 211.27a; MCL 205.737(2); Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse; Ability to adopt assessment if supported by evidence without presumptive validity; Forest Hills Coop v Ann Arbor; Taxable value (TV); State equalized value (SEV); Property Record Cards (PRCs)

The court held that the TT committed an error of law by dismissing petitioner-homeowner’s small-claims property tax appeal for failure to meet the burden of going forward instead of deciding value. Petitioner bought his residence in defendant-city in 2023 for $315,000. For 2024, respondent assessed TCV at $321,600 and TV/SEV at $160,800. In the TT, respondent timely filed sales prices and PRCs for two nearby comparables. Petitioner filed the same assessment materials and asked that his SEV be adjusted to match those comparables. After a telephone hearing, the TT dismissed, reasoning petitioner “did not provide any evidence” and relied on “mere comparison of assessed values,” concluding the burden of going forward never shifted and its “duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered.” On appeal, the court explained that petitioners bear the burden of proof, including “the burden of persuasion” and “the burden of going forward,” but TT proceedings are de novo and the TT must make an independent TCV determination when the burden of going forward is met. The court emphasized that, even if a petitioner fails to persuade, the TT may not automatically accept the roll value and may adopt the assessment only if “competent and substantive evidence supports doing so,” without affording it presumptive validity. Here, petitioner did submit valuation evidence, albeit identical to respondent’s, so the TT’s conclusion that he “provided no evidence” conflated the failure to go forward with the failure to persuade. The TT did not cite any law (and the court found none) “specifically concluding that a petitioner fails to meet its burden of going forward for purposes of establishing a property’s appropriate TCV by relying on the same evidence as the respondent in support of its decision.”. The TT’s critique went to “the reliability and weight of that evidence, and therefore the failure to persuade, rather than the failure to go forward with the evidence.” Vacated and remanded.