Tax Tribunal (TT) jurisdiction; MCL 205.731(a); General Property Tax Act (GPTA); Replacement roof as an “addition”; MCL 211.34d(1); Const 1963, art 9, § 3; Taxable value; MCL 211.27a(2); Constitutional challenge to statutory definition; Wikman v Novi; Circuit court jurisdiction

The court held on remand that the TT had jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner’s replacement roof constituted an “addition” under Const 1963, art 9, § 3, but lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the statutory definition of “addition” itself impermissibly conflicts with the Constitution. Respondent-city increased the property’s taxable value beyond the statutory cap after treating petitioner’s replacement roof as new construction and therefore an “addition” under the GPTA. The court’s earlier opinion affirmed that determination, but the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration of the TT’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s constitutional arguments. On remand, the court concluded that MCL 205.731(a) gives the TT exclusive and original jurisdiction to directly review the city’s property-tax assessment. Because MCL 211.34d(1) expressly defines “addition” both for the GPTA and as that term is used in Const 1963, art 9, § 3, the TT’s “determination that the replacement roof constitutes an ‘addition’ under MCL 211.34d is necessarily, by legislative mandate, also a determination that the replacement roof constitutes an ‘addition’ as this term is used in Const 1963, art 9, § 3.” The court therefore readopted its earlier conclusion that the roof qualified as new construction and an addition because it was not statutory “replacement construction.” But petitioner’s separate argument that MCL 211.34d’s definition itself violates the Constitution presented a different jurisdictional question. “‘Generally speaking, an agency exercising quasi-judicial power does not undertake the determination of constitutional questions or possess the power to hold statutes unconstitutional.’” Because resolving petitioner’s challenge could invalidate MCL 211.27a or MCL 211.34d, it had to be brought in circuit court, and as the TT lacked jurisdiction to consider this challenge, the Court of Appeals likewise lacked jurisdiction to resolve it in this appeal from the TT. The court vacated the inconsistent portion of its prior opinion and affirmed the TT’s 4/24/23 order.