Whether a new roof for petitioner’s commercial building was “new construction” & thus an “addition” for purposes of increasing the taxable value; MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii); Const 1963, art 9, § 3; MCL 211.27a(2)(a); Tax Tribunal (TT) jurisdiction as to a constitutional question; MCL 205.731; MCL600.605; Whether petitioner had to raise the argument in a circuit court action; WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 82074 in the 8/9/24 edition for the published opinion) and remanded the case to that court for further consideration. In the TT, petitioner argued that its “newly installed roof was not an ‘addition[]’ as the term is used in Const 1963, art 9, § 3 or MCL 211.27a(2)(a).” The TT determined “that the roof replacement was ‘new construction’ as defined by MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii) because the newly installed roof was property not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day. The [TT] did not address the constitutional argument. On appeal in the Court of Appeals, petitioner again argued that the roof replacement was not an ‘addition[]’ within the meaning of” the constitutional provision, and asserted “that the statutory definition of ‘additions’ impermissibly conflicted with Const 1963, art 9, § 3. Despite respondent’s assertion to the contrary, the Court of Appeals concluded that the [TT] had jurisdiction to consider this constitutional argument, but that” it lacked merit. The court directed the Court of Appeals on remand to reconsider whether the TT “possessed jurisdiction to decide the constitutional question and determine the impact, if any, the resolution of that issue has on Part III(B) of” the Court of Appeals judgment (concerning “additions” under MCL 211.34d(1)(b)). “To resolve this issue, the Court of Appeals must determine whether petitioner” had to raise that argument in a circuit court action.