Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v TOWNSHIP OF FLINT, Respondent-Appellee.

FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2002 9:05 a.m.

Nos. 225610; 225686 Tax Tribunal LC Nos. 00-272694; 00-269469

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v CITY OF TROY, Respondent-Appellee. Nos. 225681; 225682; 225683 Tax Tribunal LC Nos. 00-269471; 00-272695; 00-272696

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v TOWNSHIP OF BUENA VISTA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 225684 Tax Tribunal LC No. 00-269978

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS, Petitioner-Appellant, -1-

v

CITY OF AUBURN HILLS, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 225687; 225688; 225689; 225690 Tax Tribunal LC Nos. 00-269969; 00-269964; 00-269967; 00-269968 Updated Copy January 17, 2003

Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ. JANSEN, J. In these consolidated appeals, petitioner appeals as of right from the Tax Tribunal's orders dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. In 1999, the respondent municipal entities involved in these appeals assessed certain personal property of petitioner that it believed was in excess of half of the true cash value. Petitioner sought to appeal the assessments to the Tax Tribunal and mailed its tax appeal petitions on June 30, 1999, by first-class mail. The Tax Tribunal received the petitions and filing fees on July 2, 1999. All respondents subsequently filed answers to the petitions. On October 14, 1999, the Tax Tribunal entered identical orders of dismissal in each case, which state: The Tribunal, having reviewed the file in the above-captioned case, finds that the petition is untimely as it was not received by June 30 of the tax year involved or mailed by certified mail and postmarked on or before June 30 of the tax year involved as required by MCL 205.735. As such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction of the property assessment(s) at issue, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. Petitioner subsequently moved for reconsideration or rehearing. The Tax Tribunal denied petitioner's motion in an order entered on February 14, 2000. Petitioner now appeals the Tax Tribunal's decision to dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims because the petitions were untimely. The standard of review of the Tax Tribunal's decision is set forth in our state constitution: In the absence of fraud, error of law or the adoption of wrong principles, no appeal may be taken to any court from any final agency provided for the administration of property tax laws from any decision relating to valuation or allocation. [Const 1963, art 6,

Download 20021025_C225610_45_237O.225610.OPN.COA.PDF

Michigan Law