The true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), & taxable value (TV) of property; Competent, material, & substantial evidence; Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan State Tax Comm’n; President Inn Props., LLC v. Grand Rapids; Principle that the Tax Tribunal’s (TT) rules of procedure generally govern the proceedings before it; Signature Villas, LLC v. Ann Arbor; Testimony about the value of property absent submission of a signed valuation disclosure containing the witness’s conclusion of value & the basis for it; MI Admin Code, R 792.10255(2); "Valuation disclosure"; R 792.10237; The TT’s determinations as to the weight to assign evidence; Great Lakes Div. of Nat’l Steel Corp. v. Ecorse; Highest & best use of the property; Fair market value (FMV); Detroit Lions, Inc. v. Dearborn; Principle that the TCV & FMV are synonymous; Huron Ridge LP v. Ypsilanti Twp.; Claim the TT judge was biased; Mahlen Land Corp. v. Kurtz; Cain v. Department of Corr.

Concluding that the TT’s findings as to the property’s TCV, SEV, and TT were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and rejecting respondent-township’s claim that the TT judge was biased, the court affirmed. The property is a “27-hole, public, daily-fee golf course that operates profitably.” Respondent assessed it in 2017 “on the basis that its highest and best use was as vacant land available for residential development.” Petitioner asserted that the “highest and best use was to continue operation as a public golf course. Respondent’s assessor based his opinion on the value of comparable sales of land for residential development, while petitioner’s appraiser based his opinion on a capitalized value of the property as a golf course under an income analysis." The TT concluded that petitioner’s appraiser’s opinion was persuasive. It “also considered petitioner’s sales comparison approach and found that it lacked weight. It credited and largely adopted petitioner’s income approach,” while declining to adopt some deductions that petitioner sought. The TT ruled that the property was overassessed and modified its values. The record did not support respondent’s claim that the TT “determined that a valuation disclosure had less weight as a matter of law. To the contrary, [it] admitted and considered respondent’s valuation disclosure and determined that it lacked weight and credibility.” The TT pointed to “several deficiencies in respondent’s report that were based on the substance of the report, not its form.” The evidence also supported the TT’s determination that use as a golf course was the highest and best use of the property. Petitioner’s appraiser “opined that the property was too large and there was insufficient demand to feasibly convert it to residential development. The property would reasonably accommodate 673 residential units, but respondent averaged only 100 building permits a year,” and thus, such a “development project was not financially feasible” in light of the fact it could not be closed out in a reasonable time. Respondent’s assessor did not offer any evidence to support that the development was feasible. There was also sufficient evidence to support the TT’s TCV determination, which “was within the range of values advanced by the experts” and the TT “was entitled to accept petitioner’s approach to value.”