The Michigan Tax Tribunal’s (MTT) jurisdiction; Challenge to denials of the manufacturing personal property (EMPP) exemption under MCL 211.9m & 211.9n; Effect of failing to protest the denials before the March Board of Review (the Board or BOR); MCL 205.735a(3); Parkview Mem’l Ass’n v Livonia; W & E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp; Procedural due process; Constitutionally sufficient notice; Requirements for an assessor’s denial of the EMPP exemptions

The court held that the MTT did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner-taxpayer’s (Praxis) claim because “Praxis failed to timely protest the exemption denial to the March” BOR, and the notice respondent-Township provided satisfied due process. The court overruled Parkview to the extent it incorrectly held that MCL 205.735’s protest requirement, “the precursor to MCL 205.735a, is a mere ‘procedural requirement[] for perfecting an appeal in the’” MTT rather than “an express limitation on” its jurisdiction. Praxis unsuccessfully applied to the Township for the EMPP exemption under MCL 211.9m and 211.9n. It asserted that its failure to protest before the BOR “may be excused or waived because” the Township did not provide it with constitutionally sufficient notice. The MTT dismissed its petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a published opinion. The court found that the Legislature “clearly mandated that the requirement for appeal in the MTT under MCL 205.735a(3) is jurisdictional.” Further, a court may only waive it “if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.” The relevant statutes “require that an assessor’s denial of an EMPP exemption (1) be in a writing sent to the person who filed the form, (2) contain a statement of ‘the reason for the denial,’ and (3) advise the person that they have the right to appeal the denial to the Board under MCL 211.30 by ‘filing a combined document’ in the manner required by MCL 211.9m(2) and” 211.9n(2). The court concluded that taken “together, the Township’s denial notice, which stated that protest to the March [BOR] was required to protect appellate rights; the notice of assessment, which provided specific requirements for perfecting the protest; and the information provided by [the assessor] to Praxis’s agents, which was accurate (if less than complete), sufficed to protect Praxis’s due-process rights.” While there were “shortcomings in the denial notice, including its failure to advise Praxis of the requirement to submit a combined document, Praxis received actual notice of the deadline and schedule for perfecting a written appeal to the Board in the notice of assessment.” As its due-process rights were not violated, there was “no basis to waive the statutory jurisdictional requirement of protesting to the” BOR. The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed and the MTT’s dismissal of the petition reinstated.