True cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), & taxable value (TV) of real property; Whether cargo containers were “fixtures”; Tuinier v Bedford Charter Twp; Wayne Cnty v Britton Trust; Ottaco, Inc v Gauze; Doctrine of constructive annexation; Court-reporter expenses; Tax Tribunal Rules (TTRs); Former TTR 255(1) (2015 Annual Admin Code Supp, R 10255(1)); Whether the MCRs barred the Tax Tribunal (TT) from requiring the parties to secure the court reporter & pay the reporter’s expenses; Acceptance of a second-amended petition; TTR 227(1) (MI Admin Code, R 792.10227(1)); TTR 221 (R 792.10221)

The court held that the TT erred in finding that the cargo containers on petitioner’s real property “were fixtures and were taxable for purposes of determining the TCV.” But the TT did not err in requiring the parties to hire the court reporter for the hearing on the petition and to pay the reporting expenses, or in not accepting petitioner’s second-amended petition for filing. The court explained in Tuinier that “the test for whether property is considered a fixture involves a three-part analysis” – (1) whether the property in question “was actually or constructively annexed to the real estate; (2) whether the property was adapted or applied to the use or purpose of that part of the realty to which the property in question is connected or appropriated; and (3) whether the property owner intended to make the property a permanent accession to the realty.” All three elements must be met for the property to constitute a fixture. The court disagreed with the TT’s conclusion that the cargo containers here satisfied the first element. They “were not cemented, bolted, or otherwise physically attached to the property, i.e., the land itself. Thus, [they] were not actually annexed to the property. Further, while the cargo containers each weighed over four tons, which suggests the possibility of ‘constructive annexation by massive weight,’ that doctrine does not apply here. The cargo containers, presumably, were manufactured and designed to transport various materials. Removing [them] from the property would not impair their value or utility in any respect.” There was also no evidence that removing them “would affect the value of the realty.” Given that they “did not satisfy the first element of the three-part test, it follows that they were not ‘fixtures’ for the purposes of MCL 211.2(1)(a).” As to the court reporter expenses, the TT “has the authority to order that the hearing be recorded. Although the TTRs are silent on the issue of the court-reporting expenses, the [TT’s] interpretation of former TTR 255(1) as permitting the [TT] to require the parties to hire and pay the reporter’s expenses is reasonable because it is consistent with the regulation.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.