Fill - Free fillable Transfer of Ownership Guidelines PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN (Michigan) PDF form

Transfer of Ownership Guidelines

PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN STATE TAX COMMISSION

Issued October 30, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background Information 3

Transfer of Ownership Definitions 4

Deeds and Land Contracts 4

Trusts 5

Distributions Under Wills or By Courts 8

Leases 10

Ownership Changes of Legal Entities

(Corporations, Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies, etc.) 11

Tenancies in Common

Cooperative Housing Corporations

Transfer of Ownership Exemptions

Spouses 14

Children and Other Relatives 15

Tenancies by the Entireties 18

Life Leases/Life Estates 19

Foreclosures and Forfeitures 23

Redemptions of Tax-Reverted Properties 24

Trusts 25

Court Orders 26

Joint Tenancies 27

Security Interests 33

Affiliated Groups 34

Normal Public Trades 35

Commonly Controlled Entities 35

Tax-Free Reorganizations 37

Qualified Agricultural Properties 38

Conservation Easements 41

Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Camp Fire Girls

4-H Clubs or Foundations, YMCA and YWCA 42

Property Transfer Affidavits 42

Partial Uncapping Situations 45

Delayed Uncappings 46

Background Information

Why is a transfer of ownership significant with regard to property taxes?

In accordance with the Michigan Constitution as amended by Michigan statutes, a

transfer of ownership causes the taxable value of the transferred property to be uncapped

in the calendar year following the year of the transfer of ownership.

What is meant by “taxable value”?

Taxable value is the value used to calculate the property taxes for a property. In general,

the taxable value multiplied by the appropriate millage rate yields the property taxes for a

property.

What is meant by “taxable value uncapping”?

Except for additions and losses to a property, annual increases in the property’s taxable

value are limited to 1.05 or the inflation rate, whichever is less. In the year following a

statutory transfer of ownership, that limitation is eliminated and the property’s taxable

value is set at 50% of the property’s true cash value (i.e., the state equalized value).

This is what is meant by “taxable value uncapping”. See Michigan Compiled Laws

(MCL) 211.27a(3).

Note: A property’s true cash value is usually not the same as its sale price for a

variety of reasons. An assessor must determine the true cash value of a property which

has sold in the same manner that the assessor determines the true cash values of

properties which have not sold. Therefore, an assessor may not automatically set an

assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. See State Tax

Commission Bulletin No. 19 of 1997 and State Tax Commission Memorandum dated

October 25, 2005 that describes the illegal and unconstitutional practice of “following

sales.”

Can an assessor disregard a statutory transfer of ownership (i.e., can an assessor

decide not to uncap a property’s taxable value in the year following a transfer of

ownership)?

No. By statute an assessor must uncap a property’s taxable value in the year following

the transfer of ownership of that property. The assessor shall set the property’s taxable

value for the calendar year following the year of the transfer of ownership as the

property’s state equalized valuation for the calendar year following the transfer. See MCL

211.27a(3).

If two sections of MCL 211.27a(6) or (7) appear to be in conflict, how should that

conflict be resolved?

MCL 211.27a(6) includes a non-exhaustive list of conveyances that will constitute a

transfer of ownership, and MCL 211.27a(7) lists conveyances that do not constitute such

a transfer. When two statutory provisions conflict and one is specific while the other is

only generally applicable, the specific provision prevails.

Transfer of Ownership Definitions

What is a transfer of ownership?

Central to the concept of transfer of ownership is a change in the beneficial use of the

property. Michigan statute defines “transfer of ownership” generally as the conveyance

of title to or a present interest in property, including the beneficial use of the property,

the value of which is substantially equal to the value of the fee interest. MCL 211.27a(6)

(a)-(j) provides a variety of examples of what constitutes a transfer of ownership for

taxable value uncapping purposes. If a transfer of property (or ownership interest) meets

one of these definitions and does not fall under one of the exceptions or exemptions

noted in the law, that transfer is a transfer of ownership. Transfer of ownership

definitions and transfer of ownership exceptions are contained in MCL 211.27a(6)(a)-

(j) (See appendix). Transfer of ownership exemptions are contained in MCL

211.27a(7)(a)-(x). (See appendix)

Deeds and Land Contracts

Is a conveyance of a property by deed a transfer of ownership?

A transfer of property by deed is a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(a).

Is a sale by land contract a transfer of ownership?

A transfer of property by land contract is a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(b).

If a property is sold by land contract, when does the transfer of ownership occur?

The transfer of ownership occurs on the date the land contract is entered into—not the

date the land contract is recorded, nor the date the land contract is completed (paid in

full) and not the date a deed conveying title to the property is recorded in the office of

the register of deeds in the county in which the property is located.

Does a second transfer of ownership occur when a land contract is paid in full and

a deed in fulfillment of the land contract is given?

No. The law specifically states that a property’s taxable value is not to be uncapped when

a deed conveying title to the property is subsequently recorded with the register of deeds.

Is the assignment of a seller’s interest in a land contract a transfer of ownership?

No, this is considered a transfer of a security interest and is exempt by law from being a

transfer of ownership.

Is the assignment of a buyer’s interest in a land contract a transfer of ownership?

Yes, the assignment of a land contract buyer’s interest in a property conveys equitable title

to the property and a change in the beneficial use of the property occurs resulting in

a transfer of ownership.

Trusts

Is a conveyance of property to a trust a transfer of ownership?

Yes, pursuant to MCL 211.27a(6)(c), a conveyance to a trust after December 31,

1994, is a transfer of ownership. However, if the grantor stated on the deed is the

settlor (creator) of the trust or the settlor’s spouse or both and the sole present

beneficiary of the trust is the settlor of the trust or the settlor’s spouse or both, the

conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(i).

Beginning with conveyances on or after December 31, 2014, if the settlor or the settlor’s

spouse, or both, conveys residential real property to the trust and the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries are the settlor’s or settlor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother,

sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and

the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance, the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(ii).

What or who is a present beneficiary of a trust?

A present beneficiary of a trust is the person who has the enjoyment and beneficial use

of the property during the life of the trust.

What or who is a trustee of a trust?

A trustee of a trust is the person or agent who is appointed to administer the trust.

Note that banks are often trustees.

Is the trustee (or successor trustee) of a trust the same as the beneficiary of that trust?

Not necessarily. The trustee (or successor trustee) of a trust can be, and often is, a

completely different individual than the trust’s beneficiary. The beneficiary of a trust

is best determined from an examination of the trust instrument.

Is a transfer of property by a husband and wife to a trust on December 20, 2014,

with the husband and wife and their child as present beneficiaries a transfer of

ownership?

Yes. The child is a present beneficiary and is not the settlor of the trust or the settlor’s

spouse. MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(ii) does not apply as the conveyance occurred prior to

December 31, 2014, when this exception went into effect.

Is a transfer of residential real property by a husband and wife to a trust on

January 14, 2015, with their child, John Smith, as the sole present beneficiary a

transfer of ownership?

No. Since the child is the settlor’s son and the conveyance of residential real property

occurs after December 31, 2014, the conveyance to the trust is not a transfer of ownership

provided the property is not used for any commercial purpose following the conveyance.

This conveyance falls within the exception outlined at MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(ii) and is not

a transfer of ownership.

Is a transfer of property by a husband and wife to a trust with the husband and

wife as present beneficiaries and their child as a contingent beneficiary a transfer of

ownership?

No. The child is not a present beneficiary. The only present beneficiaries are the settlor

of the trust and the settlor’s spouse. The husband and wife are the sole present

beneficiaries and fall within the exception outlined at MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(i).

What or who is a contingent beneficiary of a trust?

A contingent beneficiary of a trust is a person who does not currently have the enjoyment

and beneficial use of the property held in trust. The trust document names the contingent

event, such as, the beneficiary’s attaining a certain age, or death of the settlor. If and

when the contingent event occurs, the contingent beneficiary changes status to present

beneficiary, and gains beneficial use of the property held in trust.

Is a conveyance of property which constitutes a distribution from a trust a

transfer of ownership?

Yes. However, there are two exceptions when a distribution from a trust is not a

transfer of ownership. A conveyance of property which is a distribution from a trust

is not a transfer of ownership if the distributee is also the sole present beneficiary of

the trust or the spouse of the sole present beneficiary or both. See MCL 211.27a(6)(d)(i).

Beginning December 31, 2014, a distribution of residential real property to a distributee

who is the trust’s settlor or the settlor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son,

daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the

residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(d)(ii).

Note: Not all transfers of property from trusts are distributions from the trusts. A

transfer of property from a trust to someone other than a beneficiary (or contingent

beneficiary) of that trust is not a distribution from that trust. It is simply a transfer of

property from a legal entity (the trust) to a person and the transfer should be considered

in that context.

What happens if the sole present beneficiary of a trust changes?

A change in the sole present beneficiary of a trust is a transfer of ownership, unless the

following occur: (i) the change merely adds or substitutes the spouse of the sole present

beneficiary (and provided that no other statutory exception or exemption applies); or

(ii) the change in the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries of a trust occurred on

or after December 31, 2014, for residential real property, and the change in

beneficiaries adds or substitutes the settlor’s or the settlor’s spouse’s mother, father,

brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or

granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose

following the conveyance See MCL 211.27a(6)(e)(i) and MCL 211.27a(6)(e)(ii).

Is a conveyance of property to a trust a transfer of ownership if: The grantor is the

settlor (creator) of the trust or the settlor’s spouse or both. The sole present

beneficiary of the trust is the settlor of the trust or the settlor’s spouse or both.

No. If the grantor stated on the deed is the settlor (creator) of the trust or the settlor’s

spouse or both and the sole present beneficiary of the trust is the settlor of the trust or

the settlor’s spouse or both, the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL

211.27a(7)(g).

If the present beneficiary of a trust changes on March 1, 2015, to the settlor’s

daughter, Jill, and her neighbor, Sarah, is the change in the present beneficiaries a

transfer of ownership?

Yes. A change in beneficiaries of a trust is a transfer of ownership. Beginning December

31, 2014, conveyances would not be a transfer of ownership if the property were

residential real property, the property was not used for any commercial purpose

following the conveyance, and the change adds or substitutes the settlor’s or settlor’s

spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter,

grandson or granddaughter. The exception under MCL 211.27a(6)(e)(ii) does not apply

for the reason that the change adds the neighbor, who does not meet any of the family

members qualified for this exception under this subsection. The real property should

uncap 100% in the year following the change in the beneficiaries.

What is “residential real property”?

Residential real property as used in this section means real property classified as

residential real property under MCL 211.34c. See MCL 211.27a(11)(h).

Can the assessor request the sole present beneficiary or the beneficiaries of a trust

furnish proof that there has been a conveyance, distribution or change in

beneficiaries of a trust that qualifies as an exempt transfer under MCL

211.27a(6)(c)(ii), MCL 211.27a(6)(d)(ii) or MCL 211.27a(6)(e)(ii) ?

Yes. The assessor or the Department of Treasury can request the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary

or beneficiaries meet the requirements to allow the conveyance to be an exempt

transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(ii), MCL 211.27a(6)(d)(ii) and MCL

211.27a(6)(e)(ii).

Is there a deadline for the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries to furnish proof

that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(6)(c)(ii),

MCL 211.27a(6)(d)(ii) or MCL 211.27a(6)(e)(ii)?

Yes. The law requires that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries furnish proof

that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership within 30 days of the Department

of Treasury or assessor’s request.

Is there a fine if the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries do not furnish proof?

Yes. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the Department of Treasury

or the assessor, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

Distributions Under Wills or By Courts

Is a conveyance of a deceased person’s property as directed by a will or as directed

by a court (when there is no will) a transfer of ownership?

Yes. Subject to any probate administration that may occur if real property assets are

needed to satisfy debts of the decedent’s estate, title to a decedent’s real property

generally passes at the time of his or her death to any devisees or heirs.

However, the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership if the person receiving the

property is the deceased person’s spouse, See MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(i); or beginning

December 31, 2014, for residential real property, if the distribute is the decedent’s or

the decedent’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted

son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property

is not used for any commercial purpose following the conveyance. See MCL

211.27a(6)(f)(ii).

Note: An exemption from an uncapping exists for judgments or orders of a court of

record (without specific monetary consideration for the transfer) are not a transfer of

ownership. However, the transfer of ownership definition regarding distributions under

a will or by intestate succession is considered more specific than—and therefore

overrides—this transfer of ownership exemption (even though both statutory provisions

may apply).

Can the assessor request the sole present beneficiary or the beneficiaries to furnish

proof that the conveyance by distribution by will or by intestate succession is not

a transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(ii)?

Yes. The assessor or the Department of Treasury can request the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary

or beneficiaries meet the requirements to allow the conveyance to be an exempt

transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(ii).

Is there a deadline for the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries to furnish proof

that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(ii)?

Yes. The law requires that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries furnish proof

that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership within 30 days of the Department

of Treasury or assessor’s request.

Is there a fine if the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries do not furnish proof?

Yes. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the Department of Treasury

or the assessor, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

In the case of a distribution of a property under a will or by a court, when does the

transfer of ownership (if any) occur? (Does the transfer of ownership occur upon

the death of the individual involved, upon the distribution of the property, or at some

other time?)

The transfer of ownership, if any, typically occurs when the property is probated and

conveys the decedent’s title to real property as of the time of death, whether by will or

by intestate succession. However, it is possible for a significant amount of time to pass

between an individual’s death and the distribution of that person’s property under a

will or by a probate court. If the distribution process has not proceeded in a typically

timely manner after a person’s death but before the distribution of that person’s property

and the person’s heir exercises dominion over the property, a transfer of ownership to

the heir is considered to have occurred when dominion was first exercised by the heir.

(Provided no statutory exception or exemption applies.)

Dominion in this context means control or beneficial use of a property, including

occupancy, receipt of rents, etc. The relevant considerations when there is a delay in

distribution of the decedent’s estate are whether the distribution process has advanced in

a typically timely manner and whether/when the heir had dominion over the property.

Additional information regarding the progression of the probate estate may best be

obtained by reviewing the probate court files.

Jane Doe dies on January 3, 2015, and her real property, which is classified as

industrial real property, is conveyed by distribution under a will to her daughter

Sally. Is this conveyance a transfer of ownership?

Yes, this is a conveyance by distribution under a will and is a transfer of ownership.

No exception or exemption applies to this conveyance. MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(ii) does not

apply because this exception is only applicable to residential real property that is

distributed to the decedent’s or decedent’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister,

son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the

residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance. “Residential real property” is defined as real property classified as residential

real property under MCL 211.34c. See MCL 211.27a(6)(f)(ii) and MCL 211.27a(11)(h).

Assessors should review the classification of the real property in the year of the

conveyance.

Leases

Can the execution of a lease be a transfer of ownership?

Yes. A lease of real property, entered into after December 31, 1994, is a transfer of

ownership if one or both of the following conditions exists:

1. The lease term exceeds 35 years, including all options to renew the lease. OR

2. The lessee has a bargain purchase option. A bargain purchase option is defined by law

as the right to purchase the leased property at the end of the lease for 80 percent or

less of what the property’s projected true cash value at the end of the lease. Even if the

lease agreement qualifies as a “transfer of ownership” under MCL 211.27a(6)(g), the

lessee is still required to follow the notification requirements under 211.27a(10), which

states the transferee must notify the assessing officer on the proscribed form within 45

days of the transfer of ownership, to qualify as a transfer of ownership by the taxing

unit. See Walgreen’s Co. v. Macomb Twp, 280 Mich App 58; 760 NW2d 594 (2008).

Can the leasing of personal property be considered a transfer of ownership?

Generally, no. However, the leasing of personal property that a leasehold improvement,

or a leasehold estate can be a transfer of ownership.

When a lease is initiated covering only a portion of a real property parcel, and the

lease is for more than 35 years (or contains a bargain purchase option), does a

transfer of ownership occur?

Yes. However, only the taxable value for that part of the property subject to the

lease is uncapped in the year following the transfer of ownership. In other words, a partial

uncapping of the parcel’s taxable value occurs.

If a lessee assigns the lessee’s interest in a lease which had an original term of more

than 35 years and which has a remaining term of more than 35 years at the

time of the lease assignment, does a transfer of ownership occur?

Yes, this is a conveyance by lease of a property with a lease term of more than 35 years

and is a transfer of ownership.

If a lessee assigns the lessee’s interest in a lease which had an original term of more

than 35 years and which has a remaining term of 35 years or less at the time of the

lease assignment, does a transfer of ownership occur?

No, since the remaining term of the lease is not more than 35 years.

Ownership Changes of Legal Entities (Corporations, Partnerships, Limited

Liability Companies, etc.)

Can the conveyance of an ownership interest of a legal entity (such as a

corporation, a partnership, etc.) which owns property be a transfer of ownership—

even though title to the property remains unchanged?

Yes, a conveyance of an ownership interest in a legal entity (such as a corporation, a

partnership, etc.) which owns property is a transfer of ownership of that property provided

that the ownership interest conveyed is more than 50 percent of the total ownership

interest. See MCL 211.27a(6)(h). However, this is not applicable to cooperative housing

corporations (discussed separately).

A limited liability company owns real property and conveys of 25.0 percent of the

ownership interest in 2011. In January of 2012, a conveyance of 25.1 percent

of the ownership interest of the limited liability company occurred. Did a transfer

of ownership of the real property occur? If so, when?

A transfer of ownership of the property owned by the limited liability company

occurred in January of 2012 since at that point; more than 50.0 percent of the

ownership interest in the limited liability company had been conveyed. The property’s

taxable value is to be 100% uncapped for 2013.

As of January of 2011, 50.1 percent of the ownership interest of a limited liability

company was been conveyed and the taxable value of the property was uncapped

for 2012. If, in March of 2013, 50.0 percent of the ownership interest in the limited

liability company is conveyed, does another transfer of ownership occur?

No. The percentage of ownership interest conveyed is cumulative from the date of

the last transfer of ownership. Between January of 2011 and March of 2013, not more

than 50.0 percent of the ownership interest is conveyed. Therefore, no transfer of

ownership occurs as of March of 2013.

Company A owns all the membership interest in a limited liability company. The

limited liability company owns a piece of real property. In 2011, Company A sells

and conveys its ownership interest in the limited liability company to Company

B. Did a transfer of ownership of the property occur?

A transfer occurred when Company A sold and transferred its membership interest in the

limited liability company to Company B. Therefore, the property’s taxable value shall

be uncapped for 2012. See Signature Villas, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, 269 Mich App

694; 714 NW2d 392 (2006).

Tenancies in Common

What is a tenancy in common?

A tenancy in common is a form of property co-ownership in which two or more persons

own the property with no right of survivorship between them. When one tenant in

common dies, her interest passes to her heirs or devisees. In this type of shared

ownership arrangement title does not automatically to the surviving tenant(s) in common.

Does a tenancy in common require that the tenants in common have equal

ownership shares of the property involved?

No. A tenancy in common does not require equal shares. A different, unequal

percentage of ownership interest may be established for each tenant in common under a

tenancy in common.

Is a conveyance of an ownership interest of property held as a tenancy in

common a transfer of ownership?

Yes. However, the transfer of ownership is only for that portion of the property

ownership which is conveyed; meaning a partial uncapping of the property’s taxable

value in the year following the transfer of ownership is possible with tenancies in

common. See MCL 211.27a(6)(i).

Example: Individuals A, B, and C owned a property as tenants in common. Individual A

had a 50 percent undivided interest in the property and individuals B and C each had

a 25 percent undivided interest. In 2012, individual A conveyed his/her interest to

individual B (and this conveyance was a transfer of ownership). Under these

circumstances, a partial, 50% uncapping of the property’s taxable value occurs for 2013.

How is a tenancy in common established?

A tenancy in common is generally established by means of a deed or land contract

conveyance. The language relating to the grantees of the deed or land contract

establishes the tenancy in common.

Examples: If John Doe conveys property to John Doe and Jim Smith “as tenants in

common” a tenancy in common is created and Mr. Doe and Mr. Smith are the tenants in

common. Likewise, if John Doe conveys property to John Doe and Jim Smith and no

language is provided regarding the nature of their ownership, a tenancy in common is

created between Mr. Doe and Mr. Smith.

If a property is conveyed to a man and a woman and no information is provided

regarding the nature of their ownership, a tenancy in common is formed, unless the

man and the woman are married at that time, in which case a tenancy by the entireties is

created.

How can the percentages of undivided ownership interest of the tenants in

common be determined?

Often the deed or land contract establishing the tenancy in common will specify the

percentages of undivided ownership interest of the tenants in common. In the absence

of language on the deed or land contract specifying the percentages of ownership interest

of the tenants in common, assessors are advised that it is presumed to be divided

equally between the owners unless evidence to the contrary is presented by the grantor.

Cooperative Housing Corporations

What is a cooperative housing corporation?

A cooperative housing corporation is a type of property ownership in which the

corporation holds title to a housing complex and individual stock holders in the

corporation have the right to occupy an individual dwelling in that housing complex.

Is a conveyance of an ownership interest in a cooperative housing corporation a

transfer of ownership?

Yes. However, the taxable value of that portion of the property not subject to the

ownership interest conveyed is not uncapped in the year following the conveyance. In

other words, a partial taxable value uncapping can occur for a cooperative housing

corporation. See MCL 211.27a(6)(j).

Note: The law states that a transfer of ownership occurs when more than 50 percent

of the ownership interest of a corporation changes. Beginning in 1997, this law was no

longer applicable to cooperative housing corporations.

What happens if a cooperative housing corporation, during 2012, conveys 15 out

of 100 shares of stock?

A transfer of ownership occurs. Since 15 of 100 shares transferred in 2012, 15 percent

of the taxable value of the cooperative housing corporation is to be uncapped for 2013.

Transfer of Ownership Exemptions

What is a transfer of ownership exemption?

Michigan law specifies that certain transfers of property and ownership interests are not

transfers of ownership for taxable value uncapping purposes. These types of transfers

are known as exempt transfers and the statutes that provide for these exempt transfers

are known as transfer of ownership exemptions. Transfer of ownership exemptions are

contained in MCL 211.27a(7)(a)-(x).

It is a solidly established principal that property tax “exemption statutes are to be

strictly construed in favor of the taxing unit and against the exemption claimant.”

Association of Little Friends, Inc. v City of Escanaba, 138 Mich App 302; 362 NW2d

602 (1984); Town & Country Dodge Inc. v Dep’t of Treasury, 420 Mich 226; 362

NW2d 618 (1984); Inter Co-op Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219; 668

NW2d 181 (2003).

It is also well established that a person or entity seeking a property tax exemption must

demonstrate entitlement to the exemption by a preponderance of the evidence and that a

property tax exemption cannot be inferred or implied. Holland Home v City of Grand

Rapids, 219 Mich App 384, 394; 557 NW2d 118 (1996); Michigan United

Conservation Clubs v Lansing Township, 129 Mich App 1, 11; 342 NW2d 290 (1983).

Since a transfer of ownership exemption is simply a form of property tax exemption,

it is the opinion of the State Tax Commission that the principals which apply to

general property tax exemptions also apply to transfer of ownership exemptions.

Therefore, transfer of ownership exemption statutes must be strictly interpreted against

the person or entity claiming the exemption and in favor of the local taxing unit.

Assessors must not infer a transfer of ownership exemption or grant a transfer of

ownership exemption based on implication.

Spouses

Is a transfer of property from one spouse to the other spouse a transfer of

ownership?

No, generally a transfer of property from one spouse to another spouse is not a

transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(7)(a) and MCL 211.27a(7)(t).

Is a transfer of property from a deceased spouse to a surviving spouse a transfer

of ownership? See MCL 211.27a(7)(a).

As a general rule, a transfer of property from a deceased spouse to a surviving spouse

is not a transfer of ownership.

Is a transfer of property between former (divorced) spouses a transfer of ownership?

Yes. No transfer of ownership exemption exists for property transfers between divorced

spouses. However, recently divorced spouses often must convey property to one another

as part of the divorce proceedings and these transfers of property may be exempt

transfers if the conveyances are solely to terminate a tenancy by the entireties (covered

later in this publication).

Is a transfer of property from one spouse to a limited liability company with the

other spouse as the only member of the limited liability company a transfer of

ownership?

Yes. Even though the second spouse completely controls the limited liability company,

the limited liability company is not the second spouse. A limited liability company is a

separate and distinct legal entity, different from a person. Therefore, such a situation is

not a transfer between spouses and a transfer of ownership applies.

Children and Other Relatives

Is a transfer of property from a parent to a child a transfer of ownership?

No. From December 31, 2013, through December 30, 2014, this would be an exempt

conveyance only if the property conveyed was classified residential real and if the use

of the real property does not change following the transfer of ownership. See MCL

211.27a(7)(t).

Transfers from a parent to a child occurring on or after December 31, 2014, would also

not be a transfer of ownership provided the property is classified residential real property

and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance. See MCL 211.27a(7)(u).

Does this include adopted children for transfers occurring from December 31,

2013 to December 30, 2014?

Yes, P.A. 497 of 2012 indicated that beginning December 31, 2013, a transfer of

residential real property is not a transfer of ownership if the transferee is related to the

transferor by blood or affinity to the first degree and the use of the property does not

change following the transfer of ownership. A transfer of residential real property is not a

transfer of ownership if the transferee has one of the following relationships to the

transferor:

spouse, father or mother, father or mother of the spouse, son or daughter,

including adopted children, son or daughter of the spouse and stepchildren, stepmother

or stepfather. See MCL 211.27a(7)(t).

What is the definition of relationship by blood?

The State Tax Commission offers the following definition: a first degree blood relative

is a person who shares approximately 50% of their genes with another member of the

family. First degree blood relatives include parents, children or siblings.

Does MCL 211.27a(7)(t) apply to a trust, corporation, limited liability company

or to distribution from probate?

No, due to the blood or affinity to the first degree relationship clause, the State Tax

Commission has defined transferee and transferor as both being individuals. The transfer

must be a conveyance of a present interest in real property that occurs during the

transferor’s lifetime.

Is a change in use under MCL 211.27a(7)(t) limited to a change in property

classification?

No, there are numerous changes that could be considered a change in use and a change

in use is not limited to a change in property classification.

When does MCL 211.27a(7)(t) go into effect?

P.A. 497 of 2012 indicates that this provision is effective beginning December 31, 2013.

Therefore, it is in effect only for transfers that occur from December 31, 2013 to

December 30, 2014.

Is a transfer of residential real property on January 15, 2015, to the transferor’s

or the transferor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted

son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter a transfer of ownership?

No, provided that the transfer occurred after December 31, 2014, is a transfer of

residential real property and the residential real property is not used for any commercial

purpose following the conveyance. The transferee must be the transferor’s or the

transferor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted

daughter, grandson, or granddaughter to qualify for this exemption. See MCL

211.27a(7)(u).

When does MCL 211.27a(7)(u) go into effect?

P.A. 310 of 2014 indicates that this provision is effective beginning December 31, 2014.

Therefore, it is in effect only for transfers that occur after December 31, 2014.

What is “residential real property”?

Residential real property as used in this section means real property classified as

residential real property under MCL 211.34c. This provision is not limited to homestead

property, meaning any residential real property regardless of residency, the application

of a principal residence exemption or how many residential real parcels the taxpayer

owns. See MCL 211.27a(11)(h).

What is a “commercial purpose”?

A commercial purpose as used in this section means used in connection with any business

or other undertaking intended for profit, but does not include the rental of residential real

property for a period of less than 15 days in a calendar year. See MCL 211.27a(11)(c).

John and Jane Doe transfer their residential real property to their daughter

Judy on December 1, 2013. Is this a transfer of ownership?

Yes, as long as no other exemption provisions apply because the transfer was prior

to the effective date of the P.A. 497 of 2012.

John and Jane Doe transfer their residential real property to their daughter

Judy on January 15, 2014. Is this a transfer of ownership?

No, as long as Judy maintains the same use of the property. See MCL 211.27a(7)(t).

John and Jane Doe transfer their residential real property to their son Jack on

March 1, 2014. Jack decides he wants to turn the house into a vacation rental

home. Is this a transfer of ownership?

Yes, as long as no other exemption provisions apply because Jack has not maintained the

use of the property.

John and Jane Doe transfer their residential real property to their granddaughter

Sally on January 15, 2015. Is this a transfer of ownership?

No, as long as Sally does not use the residential real property for any commercial

purpose following the conveyance. See MCL 211.27a(7)(u).

John and Jane Doe transfer their residential real property to their grandson Sam on

January 15, 2015, and Sam subsequently decides to rent the property to a friend for

20 days in 2015. Is this a transfer of ownership?

Yes. Sam renting the property for 20 days is using the property for a commercial purpose

and would result in a transfer of ownership that would uncap the taxable value for the 2016

tax year.

John and Jane Doe transfer their commercial real property to their granddaughter

Sally on January 15, 2015. Is this a transfer of ownership?

Yes, this conveyance is a transfer of ownership. MCL 211.27a(7)(u) does not apply

as the property is classified commercial real property and this exemption only applies to

residential real property.

Can the assessor request the transferee to furnish proof that the conveyance is

not a transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(7)(u)?

Yes. The assessor or the Department of Treasury can request the transferee to furnish

proof within 30 days that the transferee meets the requirements of this provision to

be an exempt transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(7)(u).

Is there a deadline for the transferee to furnish proof that the conveyance is an

exempt transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(7)(u)?

Yes. The law requires that the transferee is required to furnish proof that the conveyance

is not a transfer of ownership within 30 days of the Department of Treasury or assessor’s

request.

Is there a fine if the transferee does not furnish proof?

Yes.

If the transferee fails to comply with a request by the Department of

Treasury or the assessor, that transferee is subject to a fine of $200.00.

Tenancies by the Entireties

What is a tenancy by the entireties and how are they established?

A tenancy by the entireties is a form of concurrent ownership that can be created only

between a husband and wife, holding as one person. When the husband or wife dies, the

surviving spouse automatically becomes the sole owner of the property. In a tenancy by

the entireties, neither the husband nor the wife may sell the property unless the other

consents to the sale. Tenancies by entireties enjoy the same rights of survivorship as joint

tenancy.

A tenancy by the entireties is established by means of a deed or land contract conveyance.

The language relating to the grantees on the deed or land contract establishes the

tenancy by the entireties.

Example: If John Doe conveys property to John Doe and Jane Doe “his wife”, a tenancy

by the entireties is created. Likewise, if Jane Doe conveys property to John Doe and Jane

Doe “husband and wife” or “as tenants by the entireties”, a tenancy by the entireties

is created. Similarly, if John Doe conveys property to John Doe and Jane Doe and no

language is provided regarding the nature of their ownership, a tenancy by the entireties

is formed—provided that John Doe and Jane Doe are, in fact, husband and wife.

Is a property conveyance completed solely to create or end a tenancy by the

entireties a transfer of ownership?

No. A transfer from a husband, a wife, or both whose sole purpose is to create or

disjoin (terminate) a tenancy by the entireties is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL

211.27a(7)(b).

John Doe and Jane Doe are married. They acquire property from a third party,

creating a tenancy by the entireties. Is this acquisition of property a transfer of

ownership?

Yes. Although a tenancy by the entireties is created by the Does when they acquire the

property, the creation of the tenancy by the entireties is not the sole purpose of the

transaction (the main purpose of the transaction is for the Does to acquire the property)

and a transfer of ownership occurs.

John Doe and Jane Doe were married and owned property as husband and wife.

They divorce and (directly associated with the divorce) they deed the property from

themselves as husband and wife to Jane Doe, a single woman. Is this conveyance

a transfer of ownership?

No, since its purpose was solely to terminate the tenancy by the entireties.

John Doe owns a parcel and then marries Jane Smith who decides to take the

surname “Doe”. John Doe then conveys the parcel to John Doe and Jane Doe, as

husband and wife. Is this conveyance a transfer of ownership?

No, since its purpose is solely to create a tenancy by the entireties in the Does.

John Doe and Jane Doe are married and own a property as husband and wife. They

sell the property to a third party. Is this sale a transfer of ownership?

Yes, the purpose of the conveyance is to sell the property and not solely to end the

tenancy by the entireties.

If a divorce occurs in a tenancy by the entireties situation, does the form of

ownership change?

Yes. If two people own property as husband and wife, become divorced, and continue

to own the property, the form of ownership is converted to a tenancy in common. A

conveyance from a former spouse to a former spouse is considered a transfer of ownership.

Example: John Doe and Jane Doe owned a lakefront cottage property as husband and

wife. They divorce, but both John Doe and Jane Doe continued to own the lakefront

cottage property for several years. The nature of their ownership was changed from a

tenancy by the entireties to a tenancy in common by the fact of their divorce. Under these

circumstances, a transfer of John Doe’s undivided (tenant in common) interest to Jane

Doe would be a transfer of ownership and a partial uncapping of the lakefront cottage

property’s taxable value would result.

If a man and woman who are not married own property and subsequently become

married, is the nature of their ownership of the property automatically converted to

a tenancy by the entireties?

No. Based on court decisions and the Michigan Land Title Standard, a tenancy by the

entireties cannot be created by a conveyance to two people who later marry. See

William v Dean, 365 Mich 426; 97 NW2d 42 (1959).

Life Leases/Life Estates

What is a life lease?

A life lease generally occurs when an owner transfers ownership of his/her property to

someone else but keeps the right to use, occupy, and control the property during his/her

lifetime. A life lease must be in writing.

What is a life estate?

A life estate is an estate that has the potential duration of one or more human lives. The

usual life estate is measured by the grantee’s life. Where the estate is measured by the

life of someone other than the owner of the life estate, it is classified as a life estate pur

autre vie. For taxable value uncapping purposes, a life estate is treated the same as a life

lease. A life estate must also be in writing.

Is a conveyance of a property with the grantor retaining a life lease a transfer of

ownership?

Generally, a conveyance of a property subject to a life lease retained by the grantor

is not a transfer of ownership. However, this transfer of ownership exemption only

applies to that portion of the property conveyed that is subject to the life lease. Any

portion of the property conveyed that is not subject to the life lease does experience a

transfer of ownership upon the conveyance of the property. A partial uncapping can,

therefore, occur with conveyances involving life leases. See MCL 211.27a(7)(c).

Does the termination of a life lease or life estate result in a transfer of ownership?

Generally, the termination of a life lease or life estate results in a transfer of ownership. See

MCL 211.27a(7)(c). However, for life estates or life leases on residential real property

occurring after December 31, 2014, the termination of a life lease or life estate does not

result in a transfer of ownership if the transferee is the transferor’s or the transferor’s

spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter,

grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial

purpose following the transfer. See MCL 211.27a(7)(d).

What is “residential real property”?

Residential real property as used in this section means real property classified as residential

real property under MCL 211.34c. This provision is not limited to homestead property,

meaning any residential real property regardless of residency, the application of a principal

residence exemption or how many residential real parcels the taxpayer owns. See MCL

211.27a(11)(h).

What is a “commercial purpose”?

As used in MCL 211.27a, commercial purpose means used in connection with any business

or other undertaking intended for profit, but does not include the rental of residential real

property for a period of less than 15 days in a calendar year. See MCL 211.27a(11)(c).

In 2011 Jane Doe conveys her residential property to her neighbor, John Smith,

retaining a life estate on the entire parcel. In 2015, Jane Doe dies. Does the death of

Jane Doe result in a transfer of ownership?

Yes. A transfer of ownership occurs upon the death of Jane Doe since her death

terminated the life estate. The taxable value of the property must be uncapped for the

2015 tax year.

In 1983 Jane Doe conveyed her residential property to her neighbor, John Smith,

retaining a life estate on the entire parcel. In 2015 Jane Doe dies. Does the death of

Jane Doe result in a transfer of ownership?

Yes. A transfer of ownership occurs upon the death of Jane Doe since her death

terminated the life estate. The fact that the life estate was established prior to Proposal

A is not relevant. Beneficial use and full ownership of the property changed to Jane

Doe’s neighbor upon her death. The taxable value of the property must be uncapped for

the 2016 tax year.

In 2011 Jane Doe conveys 80 acres to her neighbor, John Smith, retaining a life estate

on 2 of the 80 acres and a house located on the 2 acres. Is this conveyance a

transfer of ownership?

Yes and no. A transfer of ownership occurs with regard to the 78 acres which are not

subject to the life estate. No transfer of ownership occurs, however, with regard to the

2 acres and the house, which are subject to the life estate (until termination of the life

estate). Therefore, a partial transfer of ownership occurs and a partial uncapping must

occur for tax year 2012.

John and Sandy Smith own property and grant John Smith’s best friend, Sam Doe,

a life estate for this property. Is the conveyance of the life estate to John Smith’s

best friend a transfer of ownership?

Yes. In this case, the life estate was not retained by the grantors as required by the

law. Beneficial use of the property changed from John and Sandy Smith to John Smith’s

best friend and a transfer of ownership occurred.

In 2013 Jane Doe conveyed her residential property to her son, Noah, retaining a life

estate over the entire parcel. Jane Doe dies in November 2014. Does the death of Jane

Doe result in a transfer of ownership?

Yes. Although Noah is Jane Doe’s son, the life estate terminated prior to December 31,

2014. Therefore the taxable value of the property must be uncapped for the 2015 tax year.

In 2013 Jane Doe conveyed her residential real property to her son, Noah, retaining a

life estate over the entire parcel. In 2015 Jane Doe dies and Noah maintains the

residential use of the property. Does the death of Jane Doe result in a transfer of

ownership?

No. A transfer of ownership does not occur upon the death of Jane Doe since the life estate

terminated after December 31, 2014, Noah was her son and the subject property is classified

as residential real property. This conveyance falls within the exception to the general rule

that the termination of a life estate results in a transfer of ownership. The taxable value of

the property remains capped for the 2016 tax year. See MCL 211.27a(7)(d).

In 2013 Jane Doe conveyed her commercial real property to her son, Noah, retaining

a life estate over the entire parcel. In 2015 Jane Doe dies. Does the death of Jane Doe

result in a transfer of ownership?

Yes. Jane Doe’s death terminated the life estate and, because the property was commercial

real property rather than residential real property, the exception set forth in MCL

211.27a(7)(d) is inapplicable. The taxable value of the property must be uncapped for the

2016 tax year.

Can an individual who has retained a life estate convey that life estate to someone else?

Yes. All privileges granted by the life estate will transfer to the new holder of the life

estate. This is not a transfer of ownership. The life estate remains in effect until

mutually terminated by the owner of the property and the new life estate holder or until

the death of the individual who had originally retained the life estate—not the death of

the new life estate holder. The life estate would come to an end when the measuring life

ends.

Can a life estate be retained for other than residential purposes? If so, does a life

estate retained by the grantor for other than residential purposes result in a taxable

value uncapping?

A life estate can be retained for a specific purpose other than a residential purpose. The

types of specific purposes (other than residential purposes) are almost limitless. A life

estate retained by the grantor for other than residential purposes does not result in a taxable

value uncapping for the portion of the property covered by the life estate, until termination

of the life estate—or until use of the property for the stated purpose of the life estate

is not possible. Any portion of the property not covered by the life estate is subject to

taxable value uncapping.

If circumstances preclude the possible use of a property for the purpose of a life estate

(whatever that may be), the life estate is to be disregarded by a local assessor when

considering transfer of ownership issues—even though the life estate may legally be in

effect.

Example: John Doe conveys an unimproved 80 acre parcel in the northern Lower

Peninsula to his son, Joe and retains a life estate over half of the parcel for the stated

purpose of grazing cattle. Under these circumstances, a partial transfer of ownership

occurs upon the conveyance, with the taxable value of the portion of the property covered

by the life estate remaining capped and the taxable value of the portion of the property

not subject to the life estate being uncapped (provided no statutory exception or

exemption applies). This is the same treatment the property would receive if the life estate

were for residential purposes. If two years later the son, Joe Doe, constructs a convenience

store on 2 acres of the 40 acres covered by the life estate, a transfer of ownership occurs

for those 2 acres (provided no statutory exception or exemption applies). The reason for

this is that the construction of the convenience store precludes the use of that portion of

the property by the father, John Doe, for grazing cattle (the specified purpose of the

life estate). Therefore, the life estate no longer applies to this portion of the property with

regard to transfer of ownership issues (even though it may still legally be in effect)

and another partial transfer of ownership occurs.

Foreclosures and Forfeitures

Is a transfer of property due to a foreclosure or forfeiture a transfer of ownership?

Generally, no. It is not a transfer of ownership when a financial institution or a land

contract seller takes a property back through foreclosure or forfeiture of a recorded

mortgage or land contract. See MCL 211.27a(7)(e). This response applies to foreclosures

of mortgages and land contracts through circuit court proceedings, the foreclosure of

mortgages by advertisement, and the forfeiture of property by summary proceedings.

A Sheriff’s Deed is utilized in foreclosure by advertisement and will be recorded

with the register of deeds. A redemption affidavit will also be recorded with the register

of deeds and will contain information regarding the redemption period and rights should

the homeowner redeem and recover his/her rights to the property. During the

redemption period, the purchaser holds equitable title to the property but the original

homeowner continues to have legal title and possession. Consequently, should the

homeowner redeem the property during the redemption period this would not be

considered a transfer of ownership.

Is a transfer of property through a deed or a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure or

forfeiture a transfer of ownership?

No. Such transfers and conveyances are to be treated in the same way as a foreclosure

or forfeiture.

When the entity or person (bank, land contract seller, etc.) that has taken a property

back through foreclosure or forfeiture later transfers the property, is that transfer

a transfer of ownership?

Yes.

Is there a time limit that a mortgagee (usually a bank) can hold a property, after

acquiring it through foreclosure, without a transfer ownership occurring?

Yes. If a mortgagee which has received a property through foreclosure does not

transfer or convey the property within one year of the expiration of the redemption period,

the taxable value of the property must be uncapped for the following assessment year.

The redemption period is the period during which the former owner may pay the debt

due and reclaim the property and is established by statute. The redemption period varies

in length and can range from one month to one year, but is usually six months.

The one-year time limit discussed does not apply to a land contract seller who has

reacquired property due to a foreclosure or forfeiture. A land contract seller who has

reacquired property through foreclosure or forfeiture may hold the property indefinitely

without a transfer of ownership occurring.

A property was sold on land contract in 2010. This sale was a transfer of ownership

and the property’s taxable value was uncapped for tax year 2011. In 2012 the

land contract seller takes the property back through foreclosure or forfeiture,

because the land contract buyer defaulted on the land contract payments. Should

the taxable value for 2011 and subsequent years be recapped as if the 2010 transfer

of ownership never occurred?

No. The 2010 transfer of property was a transfer of ownership. At that point, beneficial

use of the property transferred to the land contract buyer and the land contract buyer

acquired equitable title to the property. It should also be noted that the equitable title

held by the land contract buyer could have been mortgaged or conveyed to someone

else (subject to valid terms of the land contract). This transfer of ownership is not

undone when the land contract seller takes the property back. No statutory authority

exists to allow the recapping to be performed. The uncapped taxable value must

remain in place for 2011 and the 2011 taxable value must be used as the base for

subsequent taxable value determinations.

Redemptions of Tax-Reverted Properties

Public Act 123 of 1999 significantly altered the property tax reversion process and

establishes a three-year tax-reversion process. Annual tax-lien sales were eliminated in

favor of an annual forfeiture and judicial foreclosure process. Due process and

notification procedures were significantly strengthened and changes were made to

expedite the handling of abandoned tax-reverted properties.

What are tax-reverted properties?

Tax-reverted properties are properties with property taxes which have not been timely

paid and therefore the property owner no longer has clear title to the property.

What is meant by “redemption”?

Redemption occurs when the owner of a tax-reverted property buys back (redeems)

the tax- reverted property by paying appropriate delinquent taxes and related fees.

If the original owner redeems the tax-reverted property, has a transfer of ownership

occurred?

No. See MCL 211.27a(7)(f).

Example: Taxes have not been paid on a property for two years, delinquent tax notices

have been sent to taxpayer, and a judicial foreclosure hearing for delinquent taxes is

schedule to be held on the last day of March. Prior to the last day in March, the owner

then redeems (pays the needed sum to clear the tax lien) within the redemption period.

The lien is removed from the property. Transfer by redemption by the owner is not a

transfer of ownership.

Trusts

Is a conveyance of property to a trust a transfer of ownership when:

(1) The grantor is the settlor (creator) of the trust or the settlor’s spouse or

both.

(2) The sole present beneficiary of the trust is the settlor of the trust or the

settlor’s spouse or both.

No. If the grantor stated on the deed is the settlor (creator) of the trust or the settlor’s

spouse or both and the sole present beneficiary of the trust is the settlor of the trust or

the settlor’s spouse or both, the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. See MCL

211.27a(7)(g)(i).

Is a conveyance of property to a trust a transfer of ownership when the following

conditions are satisfied:

(1) The conveyance of property to a trust occurs on or after December 31,

2014.

(2) The property transferred is residential real property.

(3) The sole present beneficiary of the trust to whom the residential real

property conveyed is the settlor’s or the settlor’s spouse’s mother, father,

brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson,

or granddaughter.

(4) The residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose

following the conveyance.

No. Beginning December 31, 2014, conveyances to a trust if the sole present beneficiary

of the trust to whom the residential real property is conveyed is the settlor’s or

settlor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted

daughter, grandson or granddaughter and the property is not used for any commercial

purpose following the conveyance. See MCL 211.27a(7)(g)(ii).

Is a conveyance of property from a trust a transfer of ownership when:

(1) The conveyance of property from a trust occurs on or after December 31,

2014.

(2) The property transferred is residential real property.

(3) The person to whom the residential real property conveyed is the settlor’s

or the settlor’s spouse’s mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter,

adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter.

(4) The residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose

following the conveyance.

No. Beginning December 31, 2014, conveyances from a trust if the person to whom the

residential real property is conveyed is the settlor or settlor’s spouse’s mother, father,

brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson or granddaughter

and the property is not used for any commercial purpose following the conveyance are

not considered a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(7)(v).

Can the assessor request the sole present beneficiary or the beneficiaries of a trust

furnish proof that there has been a conveyance to or from a trust that qualifies

as an exempt transfer under MCL 211.27a(7)(g)(ii) or MCL 211.27a(7)(v)?

Yes. The assessor or the Department of Treasury can request the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary

or beneficiaries meet the requirements to allow the conveyance to be an exempt

transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(7)(g)(ii) and MCL 211.27a(7)(v).

Is there a deadline for the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries to furnish proof

that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership under MCL 211.27a(7)(g)(ii)

or MCL 211.27a(7)(v)?

Yes. The law requires that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries are required to

furnish proof that the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership within 30 days of the

Department of Treasury or assessor’s request.

Is there a fine if the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries do not furnish proof?

Yes. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the Department of Treasury

or the assessor, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

Note: See also the information regarding trusts contained in this publication.

Court Orders

Is a transfer of property made due to an order of a court of record a transfer of

ownership?

No, a transfer of property pursuant to a judgment or order of a court of record (any court

which has been designated as a court by the legislature is a court of record) making

or ordering the transfer is not a transfer of ownership—provided that no money is

specified or ordered by the court for the transfer. If a specific amount of money is

noted in the order or judgment for the transfer, a transfer of ownership occurs. See MCL

211.27a(7)(h).

If, as part of divorce proceedings, a court of record orders that a husband must

pay his wife $25,000 (or any other specific sum) for a property owned by them

as husband and wife, would this be a transfer of ownership?

Generally, no. Even though the court order specifies an amount for the transfer, this is

generally not a transfer of ownership since the purpose of the transfer is to undo a tenancy

by the entireties (see also information under tenancies by the entireties contained in this

publication). The section of law dealing with court ordered transfers of property does

not apply to this transfer, but the tenancy by the entireties transfer of ownership

exemption does. Therefore, the transfer is not a transfer of ownership.

Joint Tenancies

What is a joint tenancy?

A joint tenancy is a form of concurrent ownership wherein each co-tenant owns an

undivided share of property and the surviving co-tenant has the right to the whole estate.

On the death of each joint tenant, the property belongs to the surviving joint tenants,

until only one individual is left.

Example: Five people own a property as joint tenants. Each joint tenant has a 20

percent interest in the property (100/5 = 20). If one of the five dies, his/her interest is

divided equally among the remaining four joint tenants, giving each of the remaining four

a 25 percent interest in the property.

Does a joint tenancy require that the joint tenants have equal ownership interests

in the property involved?

Yes. A joint tenancy requires that the joint tenants have equal ownership interests.

How is a joint tenancy formed?

A joint tenancy is formed by means of a deed or land contract conveyance with an

express declaration of the joint tenancy. The language relating to the grantees on the

deed or land contract establishes the joint tenancy.

When is there a transfer of ownership involved in a joint tenancy situation?

On March 10, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Klooster

v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289; 795 NW2d 578 (2011), regarding the interpretation

of MCL 211.27a(7)(i) and specifically which conveyances involving a joint tenancy are

or are not transfers of ownership.

James Klooster, the father, quit-claimed his property to himself and to his son, Nathan,

as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, on August 11, 2004. James died on

January 11, 2005, leaving Nathan as the sole owner. On September 10, 2005, Nathan

quit-claimed the property to himself and his brother, Charles, as joint tenants with

rights of survivorship. The assessor uncapped the taxable value for the 2006 assessment

year. The taxpayer appealed and the Tax Tribunal ruled that the taxable value should

have uncapped for the 2006 assessment year because Nathan was not an “original

owner,” or an already existing joint tenant before the August 11, 2004 joint tenancy

was created.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Tribunal. The Court found the property

should not have uncapped because the death of a joint tenant does not constitute a transfer

of ownership, even if the joint tenant who dies was the sole original owner. The Court

concluded that a “conveyance” within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(7)(i) could not

occur unless there was a transfer of title by a written instrument.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision. The

Supreme Court found that the death of the only other joint tenant is a conveyance

under the GPTA and does not require a written instrument beyond the deed initially

creating the joint tenancy. The Court also determined that MCL 211.27a(7)(i)

establishes requirements for an exception from the definition of transfer of ownership

in three separate and distinct types of conveyances: termination of a joint tenancy,

creation of a joint tenancy where the property was not previously held in joint tenancy

or the creation of a successive joint tenancy.

Definitions:

Joint Tenancy: A joint tenancy is a form of concurrent ownership wherein each co-tenant

owns an undivided share of property and the surviving co-tenant has the right to the

whole estate. On the death of each joint tenant, the property belongs to the surviving

joint tenants, until only one individual is left.

Initial Joint Tenant: A person whose interest in the property was obtained because he or

she was one of the joint tenants who became a co-owner as a result of the “initial” joint

tenancy and who has continuously held an interest in the property as a co-owner in joint

tenancy since the creation of the “initial” joint tenancy.

Original Owner: A sole owner at the time of the last uncapping event; a joint owner at

the time of the last uncapping event; or, the spouse of the either a sole or joint owner

of the property at the time of the last uncapping event.

How to Determine if a Property Should Uncap:

Step 1: Identify the “Conveyance at Issue”

The first step is to determine if the “conveyance at issue” is the creation of an “initial”

joint tenancy, the creation of a “successive” joint tenancy or the “termination” of a

joint tenancy. The determination of whether a “conveyance at issue” is a transfer of

ownership that uncaps the taxable value of the property must be separately determined

after identification of the “conveyance at issue.” A conveyance will not constitute a

This phrase “initial joint tenant” is not specifically used in the Supreme Court’s decision, but is helpful in

explaining the decision.

transfer of ownership under the General Property Tax Act if it is excluded under MCL

211.27a(7)(a) through (x).

Step 2: Determine if the Conveyance is the Creation of a Joint Tenancy

The creation of an “initial” joint tenancy occurs when a property held by a sole owner,

by a husband and wife holding as tenants by the entirety, or by tenants in common, is

conveyed to two or more persons as joint tenants.

If the person creating the joint tenancy held title to the interest being conveyed either as

a sole owner, as husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, or as tenants in common,

then the creation of a joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership, if, at least one of

the persons conveying the interest and one of the persons receiving the interest was an

“original owner.”

If you determine the conveyance meets the requirements defined above, STOP. No

further review is necessary and the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. If the

conveyance does not meet both requirements defined above, move to Step 3 and/or Step

Step 3: Determine if the Conveyance “Terminates” a Joint Tenancy

A joint tenancy terminates when there is no “successive” joint tenancy. The termination

of joint tenancy is a transfer of ownership if the resulting owner is not an “initial joint

tenant.”

The termination of a joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership if both of the following

are true:

• At least one of the joint tenants in the joint tenancy being terminated was an

“original owner” before the joint tenancy was initially created; and

• At least one of the joint tenants in the joint tenancy being terminated was an “initial

joint tenant” and has remained a joint tenant in successive joint tenancies.

Step 4: Determine if the “Conveyance at Issue” is the creation of a “Successive”

Joint Tenancy

A “successive” joint tenancy occurs when the conveyance is from one joint tenancy

directly into another joint tenancy. The creation of a “successive” joint tenancy may,

or may not, be a transfer of ownership.

The creation of a “successive” joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership if both

of the following are true:

• At least one of the individuals in the “successive” joint tenancy was an “original

owner”

and

• At least one of the joint tenants in the previous joint tenancy was an “initial joint

tenant” and has remained a joint tenant in successive joint tenancies.

Conclusion:

• If a joint tenancy is created by an "original owner" and if that "original owner"

or their spouse are also co-tenants in the joint tenancy, then the taxable value does

not uncap.

• If a "successive" joint tenancy is created and an "original owner" or their spouse

continue as co-tenants in the "successive" joint tenancy, then the taxable value

does not uncap.

• If a joint tenancy is terminated by the death of an "original owner" or by the

"original owner" making a conveyance, resulting in the ownership again being

a sole ownership, and if that sole owner is an "initial joint tenant," then the taxable

value does not uncap.

• If a joint tenancy is terminated by conveyance and the sole owner after the

termination is an "initial joint tenant" then the taxable value does not uncap.

Several examples of each of the scenarios described above are listed below. The list

should not be considered all inclusive. The State Tax Commission advises assessors

that taxpayers are protected by a right of appeal, and therefore, when in doubt if a

transfer of ownership should result in an uncapping, an assessor should consider

uncapping the property.

Assessors are directed to MCL 211.27a(4) and Bulletin 9 of 2005 for the procedures to

follow if they determine the taxable value has mistakenly uncapped for a past assessment

year.

Example # 1: Creation of a Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005,

John conveyed Blackacre to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of

survivorship. Did the taxable value uncap in 2006?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. Since there was a transfer of ownership

which uncapped the taxable value when John purchased the property in 2004, John

was an “original owner” who continued to have an interest after the creation of the

joint tenancy. Michael became an “initial joint tenant” but he was not an “original

owner.” John’s status as an “original owner” who continued to be a co-tenant as part of

the “initial” joint tenancy provides an exception to uncapping. Michael’s status as an

“initial joint tenant” is not a factor in the analysis.

Example # 2: Termination of a Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005,

by quit claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants,

with rights of survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving

Michael as the sole surviving co-tenant. Did the taxable value uncap in 2006?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. Since John had previously held title as a sole

owner, the joint tenancy he created with Michael was an “initial” joint tenancy. Further,

since there was a transfer of ownership which uncapped the taxable value when John

purchased the property in 2004, John was an “original owner.” John was an “original

owner” and an “initial joint tenant” when the joint tenancy was initially created in 2005.

Further, John remained a joint tenant from the creation of the “initial” joint tenancy until

the joint tenancy was terminated by the death of John. Since John was an “original

owner” who continued to be a co-tenant after the creation of the “initial” joint tenancy

and since Michael became a joint tenant when the “initial” joint tenancy was created,

and Michael’s interest continued uninterrupted until the death of John, the taxable value

did not uncap when John died.

Example # 3: Termination and a Non-Successive Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005,

by quit claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants,

with rights of survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving

Michael as the sole surviving co-tenant. Michael immediately conveyed to himself and

his brother, Peter, as joint tenants, with rights of survivorship. Did the taxable value

uncap in 2006?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership when Peter was added as a joint tenant. These

facts are, in substance, those in the Klooster case itself. Since John was an “original

owner” who continuously held his interest as a co-tenant in the joint tenancy since

the joint tenancy was initially created and since Michael became an “initial joint

tenant” when the “initial” joint tenancy was created, the taxable value did not uncap

when John died. However, when Michael, as the sole surviving co-tenant, created the

joint tenancy with his brother, Peter, the creation of the joint tenancy itself was an

uncapping event for the reason that Michael was not an “original owner” at the time of

the creation of the “initial” joint tenancy with Peter. The reason that Michael was not

an “original owner,” was that he had not acquired his ownership interest in a transaction

that resulted in an uncapping of the taxable value.

Example # 4: Successive Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005,

by quit claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants,

with rights of survivorship. In 2006, John and Michael conveyed to themselves and

Michael’s brother, Peter, as an additional joint tenant, thereby expanding the joint

tenancy by making John, Michael and Peter, joint tenants, with rights of survivorship.

Did the taxable value uncap in 2007?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. John was an “original owner” arising from

the fact that he obtained his interest in the property by a conveyance that resulted in the

uncapping of the taxable value. John and Michael became “initial joint tenant” when

the “initial” joint tenancy was created in 2005. Since John was an “original owner”

whose ownership interest has continued in the “successor” joint tenancy that added

Peter, and since both John and Michael were “initial joint tenants” whose interests as

co-tenants was continuous from the time of the “initial” joint tenancy, the taxable value

did not uncap when Peter was added.

Example # 5: Life Estate

John and Mary purchased Blackacre, as tenants by the entireties, in 2004. In 2005 John

and Mary conveyed to themselves and Michael, using language which indicated that “all

three (held title) as joint tenants.” However, in addition to creating the joint tenancy

among the three of them, John and Mary also reserved a life estate for their joint lives.

In 2006, both John and Mary died. Did the taxable value uncap in 2007?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership. Although John and Mary were “original

owners” in Blackacre, arising from the fact that the taxable value uncapped in 2005, the

year following their purchase, no “present” joint tenancy was created by the 2005

conveyance. Instead, the instrument, by reservation, created a Life Estate during their

joint lives, with a remainder interest, in joint tenancy, among John, Mary and Michael.

MCL 211.27a(7)(c) provides an exception to uncapping for a conveyance of property

subject to a retained Life Estate “until the expiration or termination of the life estate…”

Therefore, it is the State Tax Commission’s interpretation that a separate and distinct

uncapping event, the expiration or termination of a retained life estate, occurred prior

to the joint tenancy becoming a present interest and that this uncapping event took

precedence over the exception to uncapping contained in MCL 211.27a(7)(i). MCL

211.27a(6) provides that a “transfer of ownership means the conveyance of title to or a

present interest in property, including the beneficial use of the property, the value of

which is substantially equal to the value of the fee interest.” In this example, by the

time the remainder interest becomes a present interest, Michael was the sole owner of the

property, not an “initial joint tenant.” It should also be noted that upon the death of

John and Mary, Michael becomes an “original owner.”

Example # 6: Partial Interest

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005,

by quit claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants,

with rights of survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving

Michael as the sole surviving co-tenant. Michael immediately conveyed a 1% interest

in the property to his daughter, Roberta, as a tenant in common. At the time, Roberta

was a Michigan resident who resided on the property, and the conveyance was made

for the purpose of allowing her to claim the Principal Residence Exemption. In 2007,

Michael and Roberta conveyed to themselves, as joint tenants, with rights of survivorship.

Did the taxable value uncap in 2008?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership as to an undivided 99% interest in the property.

The original 1% conveyed to Roberta in 2005 resulted (or should have resulted) in an

uncapping of the undivided 1% interest which she received as a tenant in common.

This uncapping made Roberta an “original owner.” However, she was an “original

owner” of only an undivided 1% interest, as a tenant in common, with her father. When

the joint tenancy interest was created, the effect was that Michael, as the sole surviving

co-tenant of the previous joint tenancy with his father, John, could not rely on the

fact that he was an “initial joint tenant” to exempt the conveyance of the undivided

99% interest he still held, for the reason that when the previous joint tenancy

terminated, he was not an original owner. He was not an “original owner” for the reason

that he had not acquired his remaining 99% undivided ownership interest in a transaction

that resulted in an uncapping of the taxable value.

Please note, however, if multiple grantors hold as tenants-in-common, each tenancy-in-

common interest must be analyzed separately, and it is possible for a partial uncapping

to occur, for the reason that a person may be an “original owner” as to one tenancy-in-

common interest, but not an “original owner,” as to the remainder of the tenancy-in-

common interests in the property.

Security Interests

What is a security interest?

A security interest is an interest in a property that is granted to ensure that a debt will

be paid. An example of a security interest is a mortgage to a bank, where the owner of a

property gives a security interest to the bank which allows the bank to foreclose on the

mortgage and eventually take the property involved if the required mortgage payments

are not made.

Is a transfer to establish, assign, or release a security interest a transfer of ownership?

No. A transfer to establish, assign, or relinquish a security interest is not a transfer of

ownership. See MCL 211.27a(7)(j).

The following are not transfers of ownership since these transactions establish, assign, or

relinquish a security interest:

• A beginning of a mortgage

• An end of a mortgage

• An assignment of a mortgage by one financial institution to another

financial institution

• An assignment of a seller’s interest in a land contract (see also the

information on land contracts)

• An equitable mortgage

What is an equitable mortgage?

An equitable mortgage resembles a deed but is, in fact, a mortgage.

Example: A land owner holds title to a parcel of vacant land and desires to have a

builder construct a home on the parcel. To ensure that the builder (or the bank

financing the home construction) can obtain title to the property if necessary due to

nonpayment, the land owner deeds the vacant land to the builder—with the expectation

that the property will be deeded back upon completion of construction. The builder then

constructs a home on the parcel for the land owner. The builder then conveys the

property (land and house) back to the land owner. This scenario is an example of an

equitable mortgage (since it would be recognized as a mortgage by a court even though

it differs from what may be commonly considered to be a typical mortgage).

Is a transfer of property involving a relocation company a transfer of ownership

(to the relocation company)?

Generally, no. A transfer of property (typically a residence) involving a relocation

company is generally not a transfer of ownership (to the relocation company). Such

a transaction may establish a security interest by the relocation company. It may take a

significant amount of time for a relocation company to find a final buyer for a property.

The amount of time the relocation company holds the property is not normally relevant

to a determination regarding transfer of ownership. Occasionally, the relocation holds

the property so long that it actually purchases the property and relocated previous owner

transfers the beneficial use and all his or her interest in the property. When this unusual

scenario comes to the attention of the assessor, it should be treated as a transfer of

ownership.

Affiliated Groups

What is an affiliated group?

An affiliated group is one or more corporations connected by stock ownership to a

common parent corporation.

Does an entity have to be a corporation to be part of an affiliated group?

Yes. Entities which are not corporations cannot be part of an affiliated group.

Is a transfer of a property between members of an affiliated group a

transfer of ownership?

No. Upon request by the State Tax Commission, a corporation shall furnish proof

within 45 days that the transfer meets the requirements of MCL 211.27a(7)(k). Failure

to comply with a request by the STC under this subsection is subject to a fine of $200.00.

See MCL 211.27a(7)(k).

Normal Public Trades

What is normal public trading?

Normal public trading of shares of stock includes the usual day-to-day trading of

publicly held stock.

Can normal public trading of stocks or other ownership interests be a

transfer of ownership?

No. Normal public trading of shares of stock or other ownership interests in a

corporation or other legal entity is not a transfer of ownership if the ownership interests

are both:

1. Traded in multiple transactions and

2. Involve unrelated individuals, institutions, or other legal entities. See MCL

211.27a(7)(l).

This transfer of ownership exemption applies even if the trading cumulatively totals

more than 50 percent of the total ownership interest of the entity.

Are certain types of trading transactions considered not to be normal public trading?

Yes. The six trading situations listed below are not normal public trading. Any of these

six trading situations could result in a transfer of ownership (provided that no statutory

exception or exemption applies):

1. The merger of two or more companies

2. The acquisition of one company by another or by an individual

3. The initial public offering (IPO) of the stock of a company

4. A secondary public offering of the stock of a company (a secondary public

offering occurs when a company whose stock is already publicly traded issues

additional new stock for sale to the public)

5. The trading of the stock of a privately held company (a privately held

company is a company whose stock is not available for sale to the public)

6. A takeover involving a public offer by someone to buy stock from present

stockholders in order to gain control of a company

Commonly Controlled Entities

If entities are commonly controlled, is a transfer of property (or ownership

interests) among the entities a transfer of ownership?

No. See MCL 211.27a(7)(m).

With regard to entities under common control, what is meant by “entities”?

“Entities” in this context means corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies,

limited liability partnerships, or any other legal entity.

When are entities considered to be commonly controlled?

The State Tax Commission has directed that Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin

1989-48 is to be used in determining whether entities are commonly controlled. This

bulletin is available on the Internet at www.michigan.gov/treasury. This bulletin details

three categories of common control:

1. A parent-subsidiary group of trades or businesses

2. A brother-sister group of trades or businesses

3. A combined group of trades or businesses (a specific combination of a parent-

subsidiary group and a brother-sister group of trades or businesses)

For entities to be commonly controlled under Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin

1989-48, the entities must be engaged in a business or trades activity. See C & J

Investments of Grayling, LLC v City of Grayling, unpublished opinion per curiam of the

Court of Appeals, issued November 13, 2007 (Docket No. 270989). The term “common”

is defined as “belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question.”

Entities which are not engaged in a business activity cannot be entities under common

control under Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48.

Example: A husband and wife own their personal residence together as tenants by the

entireties. For estate planning and other purposes, they convey the property to a limited

liability company of which the wife is the only member. The entities involved (the

husband and wife and the limited liability company) cannot be considered entities under

common control under Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48 since no

business activity exists in this situation.

Note: Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48 refers to Internal Revenue

Service regulations concerning constructive ownership (also commonly known as

ownership attribution). It is the opinion of the State Tax Commission that, although

Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48 is to be used in determining entities

under common control, the Internal Revenue Service regulations concerning

constructive ownership are to be disregarded. Application of the regulations regarding

constructive ownership (ownership attribution) would result in transfer of ownership

exemptions that were clearly not intended by the legislature.

Is it possible for entities not to qualify as entities under common control under

Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48 but still be considered entities

under common control?

Yes. If there is a business purpose, there are two circumstances that constitute a common

control situation—even though the entities involved may not qualify as entities under

common control under Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin 1989-48:

1. Initial transfers by individuals of a fee simple interest in a property, made to an

entity such as a corporation, a limited liability company or a partnership, are

considered to be transfers between commonly controlled entities and not

transfers of ownership, if the ownership interests and extent of control which

the individuals have in the entity are identical to the ownership interest and extent

of control which each of the individuals had in the property prior to the initial

transfer. Transfers to limited partnerships would not qualify for the reason that

such transfers involve a change in control.

2. Transfers where the fee simple interest in a property is conveyed

(retransferred) from an initial transferee entity, as described in 1 above, to

the individuals who made the initial transfer to that entity, if the ownership

interests and extent of control which those individuals have in the entity at

the time of the retransfer are identical to the ownership interests and extent

of control which each of the individuals had in the property prior to the

initial transfer and those interests have not changed the between the time of

the initial transfer and the time of the retransfer.

In Sebastian J. Mancuso Family Trust v City of Charlevoix, 300 Mich App 1, 831 NW2d

907 (2013), the Court held that Trustees between trusts do not equate to the trusts being

commonly controlled. The Court stated: “property is transferred from one owner to a

wholly new owner. Exceptions are made for transfers from a trust settlor where the

settlor is the sole present beneficiary because ownership in such a situation does

not change. See MCL 211.27a(6)(c). Exceptions are also made for transfers of property

that substitute the transferor for the transferor’s spouse. See MCL 211.27a(6)(d), (e), and

(f). The exceptions in § 7 are similar in nature; they are triggered when property is

transferred from one owner to a wholly new owner. Reading the statute as a whole, it

is apparent that petitioner simply does not fall within the definition of “commonly

controlled” by virtue of having the same trustees for both the transferring trust and the

receiving trust.”

Tax-Free Reorganizations

If a transfer of real property (or other ownership interest) results from a transaction

that qualifies as a tax-free reorganization under section 368 of the Internal

Revenue Code, 26 USC 368, is that transfer a transfer of ownership?

No. See MCL 211.27a(7)(n).

What is meant by “reorganization”?

“Reorganization” in this context can cover a number of situations such as the following:

corporate acquisitions, corporate mergers, corporate divisions, etc.

What types of entities (individuals, partnerships, limited liability companies,

corporations, etc.) are covered by section 368 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC

368?

Section 368 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC 368, applies solely to corporations

and corporate reorganizations. This section of the Internal Revenue Code does not apply

to individuals, partnerships, limited liability companies, or any type of entity other

than corporations. Therefore, the transfer of ownership exemption for tax-free

reorganizations applies only to tax-free reorganizations solely involving corporations.

A tax-free reorganization that involves an entity that is not a corporation is a transfer of

ownership.

Qualified Agricultural Properties

What is qualified agricultural property?

Qualified agricultural property is (1) unoccupied property and related buildings

classified as agricultural by the local assessor or (2) unoccupied property and related

buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined by

law. (See MCL 211.7dd for the definition of qualified agricultural property and the

STC Q and A on Qualified Agricultural Property for more information).

Is a transfer of qualified agricultural property a transfer of ownership?

A transfer of qualified agricultural property is not a transfer of ownership if (1) the

property remains qualified agricultural property after the transfer and (2) the person to

whom the qualified agricultural property is transferred files an affidavit (form 3676,

Affidavit Attesting That Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified

Agricultural Property) with the assessor and the register of deeds. See MCL

211.27a(7)(o).

Must an assessor verify that the affidavit has been filed with the appropriate

It is a requirement of the law that this affidavit be filed with the appropriate register of

deeds in order for the transfer of ownership exemption to be granted.

Is a property which is transferred and has a partial exemption (for example

75%) as qualified agricultural property eligible for the qualified agricultural

property transfer of ownership exemption?

Yes, if the new owner maintains the parcel as 75% qualified agricultural property and

files an affidavit with the assessor and the register of deeds attesting that the property

will remain 75% qualified agricultural property. In this case, there would be a partial

uncapping of 25 percent (for the portion of the property which is not qualified agricultural

property) and the 75 percent which is qualified agricultural property would remain

capped.

Is a property which is 100 percent qualified agricultural property but will be

something less than 100 percent qualified agricultural property after a transfer

(example 75%) eligible for the qualified agricultural property transfer of ownership

exemption?

No. The taxable value of the parcel will be completely (100 percent) uncapped for the

following year. It is the opinion of the State Tax Commission that a reduction in

the percentage of qualified agricultural property exemption results in a total uncapping

of that parcel’s taxable value in the situation described above. The qualified agricultural

property transfer of ownership exemption does not provide for a partial uncapping in this

situation.

What happens if a split occurs and the split parcel is converted by a change in use?

If part of the property is split from the parcel and then the split parcel is converted by a

change in use, the taxable value of the split parcel is uncapped in the following year. The

taxable value of the remainder of the parcel which has not been converted by a change

in use remains capped. However, if part of the property is converted by a change in use

prior to or not involving a split, the taxable value of the entire parcel is to be uncapped in

the year following the change in use.

Can only a portion of a parcel uncap following a transfer of ownership if that portion

is no longer qualified agricultural property?

Under Public Act 375 of 2016, effective December 28, 2016, a transfer of ownership

includes an assessor's establishment of a separate tax parcel, at the request of the property

owner, for a portion of a parcel that ceased to be qualified agricultural property but was

not subject to a land division under the Land Division Act. The separate tax parcel only

will have the taxable value uncapped as of December 31 in the year that the separate tax

parcel ceases to be qualified agricultural property. The separate tax parcel that is no

longer qualified agricultural property is subject to the agricultural property recapture tax.

The status of the remaining portion of the original parcel is not affected by the

establishment of the separate parcel.

A parcel is 100% qualified agricultural property and could receive a 100% qualified

agricultural property exemption. However, the owner, who lives on the parcel,

claims the homestead exemption so that he can also claim a homestead

exemption on contiguous vacant property. If this parcel is transferred, could the

new owner benefit from the qualified agricultural property transfer of ownership

exemption even though the property is not receiving the qualified agricultural

property exemption?

Yes, provided that the new owner files the required affidavit with the local assessor

and the register of deeds attesting that the property will remain qualified agricultural

property. Statute requires that a property be qualified agricultural property to be

eligible for this transfer of ownership exemption. It is not required that the property

be receiving the qualified agricultural property exemption to be eligible for this transfer

of ownership exemption.

What happens if a property receives the qualified agricultural property transfer of

ownership exemption and later is converted by a change in use?

If property is granted the qualified agricultural property transfer of ownership exemption

and is later converted by a change in use, all of the following must occur:

1. The taxable value must be uncapped in the year after the year of the conversion

by a change in use.

2. The property is subject to the recapture tax associated with PA 261 of 2000,

MCL 211.1001 to 211.1007.

3. The assessor must remove the qualified agricultural property exemption in

the year following the conversion by a change in use.

How is a property converted by a change in use?

A property can be converted by a change in use in either of two ways:

1. The actual use of the property changes and the assessor determines that the

property is no longer qualified agricultural property.

2. A purchase is about to occur and prior to the purchase the future purchaser files a

Notice of Intent to Rescind the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption (form

3677) with the local tax collecting unit indicating the purchaser’s intent to

rescind the qualified agricultural property exemption.

Note: If the sale is not consummated within 120 days of the notice in item 2, the property

is not converted by a change in use.

When does the conversion by a change in use occur in the case of a future purchaser

filing a notice indicating the purchaser’s intent to rescind the qualified

agricultural property exemption?

In such a case, the property is converted by a change in use on the date that the proper

notice is filed with the local tax collecting unit, provided that the sale is consummated

within 120 days of the notice.

If someone acquired a property that qualified for the qualified agricultural property

transfer of ownership exemption but neglected to file the required affidavit, can that

person still qualify for the exemption several years later?

Yes, MCL 211.27a(8) allows for the recapping of taxable value, for uncappings which

occurred after 2001 and when all five of the following conditions exist:

1. The property qualified for the qualified agricultural property exemption from

uncapping but the purchaser failed to timely file the required affidavit.

2. The assessor uncapped the property’s taxable value in the year following the transfer.

3. The purchaser later discovered the error.

4. The purchaser then filed the required affidavit under MCL 211.27a(7)(o).

5. The property was qualified agricultural property for each year back to, and

including, 1999.

If all of these five conditions are met, the property is recapped beginning with the

year the affidavit is filed. The taxable value will be changed to the taxable value the

property would have if it had not been uncapped after the transfer. This requires

recalculation of the property’s capped values from the year that the property was

uncapped to the year that the affidavit was finally filed. However, the owner of the

property is not entitled to a refund of taxes already paid on the taxable value being

recapped. If a tax bill has not been paid and the due date for the bill occurs after the

recapping, the recapped taxable value is to be used for that bill.

Who authorizes a taxable value recapping for a transfer involving qualified

agricultural property?

The local unit can authorize a taxable value recapping for a transfer involving qualified

agricultural property. The assessor implements this recapping by completing form 3675

Assessor Affidavit Regarding the Recapping of the Taxable Value of Qualified

Agricultural Property. It is not necessary a recapping be approved by the July or December

Board of Review, the Michigan Tax Tribunal, or the State Tax Commission. In fact,

in most instances, these bodies do not have the legal authority to process a taxable value

recapping of qualified agricultural property.

Conservation Easements

What is a conservation easement?

A conservation easement is an interest in land that provides limitation on the use of

land or a body of water or requires or prohibits certain acts on or with respect to the land

or body of water, whether or not the interest is stated in the form of a restriction, easement,

covenant, or condition in a deed, will, or other instrument executed by or on behalf of

the owner of the land or body of water or in an order of taking, which interest is

appropriate to retaining or maintaining the land or body of water, including

improvements on the land or body of water, predominantly in its natural, scenic, or

open condition, or in an agricultural, farming, open space, or forest use, or similar use

or condition.

Is a transfer of land that qualifies as a conservation easement, or is eligible for a

qualified conservation contribution under 170(h) of the internal revenue code, 26

USC 170, a transfer of ownership?

No. A transfer of land is not a transfer of ownership if the transfer of land is either subject

to:

1. A conservation easement under subpart 11 of part 21 of the natural resources

and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451 or

2. A transfer of ownership of the land or a transfer of an interest in the land is

eligible for a deduction as a qualified conservation contribution under section

170(h) of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 170. See STC Bulletin 11 of 2007

and MCL 211.27a(7)(q).

Is the conservation easement transfer of ownership exemption applicable to

buildings or structures located on the land?

No, the conservation easement transfer of ownership exemption only applies to the

transfer of land and does not apply to buildings or structures located on the land.

Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Camp Fire Girls, 4-H Clubs or Foundations, YMCA and

YWCA

Are Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Camp Fire Girls, 4-H Clubs or Foundations, YMCA and

YWCA eligible for a transfer of ownership exemption?

Yes, if the transfer of real property (or other ownership interest):

1. Results from a consolidation or merger of a domestic nonprofit corporation that

is a boy or girl scout or camp fire girls organization, a 4-H club or foundation, a

YMCA, or a YWCA and

2. At least 50% of the members of that organization or association being residents

of the State of Michigan then these organizations qualify for the transfer of

ownership exemption. See MCL 211.27a(7)(r).

Note: Other lawful transfer of ownership exceptions or exemptions may apply.

Additionally, a provision is given for waiver of the residency requirement by a County

Board if the property is used solely for the purposes for which the organization was

established. See MCL 211.7d and STC Bulletin 1 of 2009.

Are there any limitations on the amount of acreage that is exempt for eligible Boy

Scout, Girl Scout, Camp Fire Girls, 4-H Clubs or Foundations, YMCA and YWCA

for a transfer of ownership exemption?

Yes, if these organizations reorganize, merge, affiliate or in some other manner

consolidate with another Boy or Girl Scout or Camp Fire Girls Organization, 4-H club

or Foundation or YMCA or YWCA after December 30, 2007, then the exemption is

limited to 480 acres times the number of individual organizations that took part in the

reorganization, merger, affiliation or consolidation.

Property Transfer Affidavits

What is a Property Transfer Affidavit?

Michigan statutes require that the buyer, grantee, or transferee of a property notify

the local assessing office when a transfer of ownership occurs. The Property Transfer

Affidavit, form 2766, (formerly L-4260) is available on the STC website at

www.michigan.gov/statetaxcommission.

Is there a deadline for filing the Property Transfer Affidavit?

Yes. The law requires that the Property Transfer Affidavit shall be filed with the local

assessing office for the local unit of government in which the property is located

within 45 days of a transfer of ownership. See MCL 211.27a(10).

Is there a penalty for failure to file a Property Transfer Affidavit?

Yes. Michigan law provides for the following penalties:

For real property classified other than industrial real or commercial real, Michigan law

provides a penalty of $5.00 per day for each separate failure to file a Property Transfer

Affidavit up to a maximum of $200.00 for each parcel.

For property classified commercial real or industrial real with a sales price of $100

million or less the penalty is $20 per day up to a maximum of $1,000.

For property classified commercial real or industrial real with a sales price over $100

million the penalty is $20,000 unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that the failure to

file was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. If the taxpayer can

make that demonstration then the penalty is $20 per day up to a maximum of $1,000.

Penalties begin to accrue after the 45-day filing deadline has passed. However, the

governing body of a local unit of government may adopt a resolution waiving this penalty.

Who receives the penalties?

This penalty is distributed to the local tax collecting unit.

Does the penalty become a lien on the property?

No. Because it is not a lien on the property, penalties for failure to file a property

transfer affidavit will not cause a parcel to go to tax sale.

If a Property Transfer Affidavit does not contain all required information or

contains incorrect information, has the Property Transfer Affidavit been timely

filed? If not, can the penalty be levied?

It is a statutory requirement that certain information (e.g., the parties to the transfer, the

date of the transfer, the actual consideration for the transfer, parcel identification number

or legal description) be reported to the local assessor when reporting a transfer of

ownership. If information is missing from these required sections or if these required

sections do not contain correct information, the Property Transfer Affidavit has not

been properly filed. If a Property Transfer Affidavit has not been properly filed, the

penalty is to be levied unless waived by local unit resolution.

The State Tax Commission expects that assessors will make reasonable efforts to work

with property owners to correct inadequate filings of Property Transfer Affidavits.

However, the ultimate responsibility for filing a properly completed Property Transfer

Affidavit rests with the purchaser.

Is the Property Transfer Affidavit (or any of the information provided on the

Property Transfer Affidavit) confidential?

No.

Who is required to file the Property Transfer Affidavit?

Michigan law specifies two possibilities for the party responsible for filing the Property

Transfer Affidavit.

1. Under a transfer of more than a 50 percent ownership interest in a legal entity

(such as a corporation, partnership, etc.) which owns property, the Property

Transfer Affidavit must be timely filed by either that legal entity or by the buyer,

grantee, or other transferee of the property.

2. In all other transfer of ownership situations, Michigan law specifies that the

buyer, grantee, or other transferee of the property must timely file the Property

Transfer Affidavit.

Must a Property Transfer Affidavit be filed when a transfer of property (or

ownership interest) is not a transfer of ownership?

No. A Property Transfer Affidavit must only be filed when a transfer of property (or

ownership interest) is a transfer of ownership. However, the Property Transfer Affidavit

was designed to be filed even in situations where no transfer of ownership has occurred.

The form was designed to allow parties involved in transactions which were not

transfers of ownership but which may appear to have been transfers of ownership to

alert the local assessor that the transactions were not transfers of ownership (and should

not result in taxable value uncappings). Property owners are therefore encouraged to

submit Property Transfer Affidavits even in situations where no transfer of ownership

has occurred in order to avoid an incorrect taxable value uncappings.

Can notification of a transfer of ownership be made by means other than a

Property Transfer Affidavit?

Under the law, a transfer of ownership must be reported using a Property Transfer

Affidavit. No substitute reporting means is permitted. However, it is permissible to

submit additional documentation, along with a Property Transfer Affidavit. Property

owners are encouraged to submit additional documentation as needed to inform local

assessors of relevant circumstances associated with transfers of property (or ownership

interests).

Can a local assessor require documentation in addition to a Property Transfer

Affidavit to make a decision whether a transfer of property (or ownership interest)

was a transfer of ownership?

Local assessors have the responsibility to determine whether transfers of property (or

ownership interests) are transfers of ownership under the law. To make this

determination, local assessors will sometimes need more information than is contained

on the Property Transfer Affidavit. Although a local assessor cannot

require documentation in addition to a Property Transfer Affidavit, a local assessor can

request that additional documentation (e.g., copies of trust instruments, partnership

agreements, articles of incorporation, limited liability company operating agreements,

etc.) be submitted.

Often the documentation needed by an assessor to make a transfer of ownership

determination is sensitive in nature. Assessors are advised to treat sensitive documents

which come into their possession with discretion, even if the documents could be

considered to be public records.

Partial Uncapping Situations

What is a partial uncapping situation?

A partial uncapping situation is one where a transfer of ownership has occurred but the

prescribed treatment for the property’s taxable value in the year following the transfer of

ownership does not involve setting the property’s entire taxable value at the property’s

state equalized value (50% of the property’s true cash value) as is usually required.

Instead, only a portion of the property’s taxable value is set at (a corresponding portion

of) the property’s state equalized value; the remainder of the property’s taxable value

remains subject to capped value limitations.

Example: Jane Doe and her sisters, Mary Doe and Sally Doe, own a parcel of property

together as tenants in common, each with an undivided 1/3 interest. In 2010 Jane

Doe transfers her undivided 1/3 interest in the parcel to Mary Doe and this transfer

is a transfer of ownership (assumed for this example). The 2011 taxable value of the

parcel is to be partially uncapped due to this (partial) transfer of ownership i.e., the

2011 taxable value of the parcel is to be 1/3rd uncapped to match the undivided

ownership interest conveyed from Jane Doe to her sister.

In accordance with State Tax Commission guidelines, the 2011 taxable value for this

parcel would be determined as follows:

(0.333 x 2010 state equalized value)

+ (0.667 x 2010 capped value)

2011 taxable value

The above formula is in accordance with established State Tax Commission guidelines for

partial taxable value uncapping in a tenancy in common (undivided interest) situation.

The mathematical procedures in other partial uncapping situations may differ from

the above formula. If, for instance, a life lease is retained by a grantor for a portion of a

property, a partial transfer of ownership occurs. In this case, the taxable value

corresponding to the true cash value of the portion of the property not covered by the

life lease is uncapped, while the taxable value corresponding to the remainder of the true

cash value of the property remains capped.

Under what circumstances can a partial taxable value uncapping occur?

Transfers of ownership will result in partial uncapping situations under the following:

1. Tenancy in common

2. Long-term (or bargain purchase option) lease of a portion of a parcel

3. Cooperative housing corporation

4. Life lease retained by the grantor for a portion of a parcel

5. Prior-year split of a parcel discovered after the close of the current year March

Board of Review

6. A parcel with a partial qualified agricultural property exemption

These are the circumstances that will currently result in a partial taxable value uncapping

due to a transfer of ownership. All other transfers of ownership will result in a complete

taxable value uncapping.

It is specifically noted that transfers of ownership involving joint tenancies cannot

result in a partial uncapping (unless one of the six sets of circumstances listed above also

applies).

It is also specifically noted that transfers of ownership due to changes of ownership

interest of a legal entity (e.g., a corporation, limited liability company, etc.) cannot result

in a partial uncapping (unless one of the above sets of circumstances also applies).

Delayed Uncappings

What is a delayed uncapping?

For various reasons, it sometimes happens that the taxable value of a property is not

uncapped in the year following a transfer of ownership as required by statute. At some

later time (after the close of the March Board of Review in the year following the

transfer of ownership), this situation is discovered and the property’s taxable value is

uncapped. This later taxable value uncapping is called a delayed uncapping.

What are the causes of delayed uncappings?

There are two main causes of delayed uncapping situations:

1. A failure on the part of the transferee (buyer) of a property to file a Property

Transfer Affidavit in a timely manner as required by law

2. A clerical error on the part of the assessor or a mutual mistake of fact

What happens if a delayed uncapping is the result of a failure on the part of the

transferee (buyer) of a property to file a Property Transfer Affidavit in a timely

manner?

If a local assessor becomes aware that a taxable value of a property was not uncapped in

the year following a transfer of ownership of that property due to the failure of the

transferee of the property to file a Property Transfer Affidavit in a timely manner

(and the March Board of Review has closed for the year following the transfer of

ownership), the assessor must uncap the taxable value of the property for the year

following the transfer of ownership. The assessor must also then recalculate the taxable

values of subsequent years, if any, using the uncapped taxable value as a base. The

assessor must complete a separate Form 3214, formerly known as form L-4054, Assessor

Affidavit Regarding “Uncapping” of Taxable Value, for each year that the property’s

taxable value needs to be changed (i.e., if the taxable values for five years need to be

changed, the assessor will need to complete five forms). Affected assessment rolls and

tax rolls are updated accordingly as well. Ultimately, the property owner will be billed

for taxes based on the uncapped and recalculated taxable values.

The answer provided above is not intended to be a complete listing of delayed

uncapping procedures. See State Tax Commission Bulletin No. 8 of 1996 (and its

supplement contained in State Tax Commission Bulletin No. 3 of 1997) for a more

comprehensive discussion of delayed uncapping procedures and issues.

Is there a limit on the number of years of additional property taxes a property

owner can be made to pay if that property owner failed to report a transfer of

ownership in a timely manner?

No, there is no limitation. If a delayed uncapping is the result of a failure on the part

of a transferee of a property to file a Property Transfer Affidavit in a timely manner,

additional taxes, penalties, and interest must be levied for all years affected. The interest

and penalties originate from the date the tax would have been originally levied if the

property’s taxable value had been uncapped at the proper time.

Example: In 2010 a property owner does not file a Property Transfer Affidavit to

report a transfer of ownership that occurred in 2010 and the property’s taxable value is

not uncapped for 2011. In December of 2020 the property is still owned by the same

individual and it is discovered by the assessor that a transfer of ownership occurred

in 2010 and the property’s taxable value was not uncapped. A billing will occur for all

additional taxes due to the delayed uncapping, along with associated penalties and

interest. The additional taxes will be for the years 2011 through 2020.

Does a property owner who failed to file a Property Transfer Affidavit in a timely

manner have any appeal rights when the property’s taxable value is uncapped in a

delayed manner?

Yes. MCL 211.27b specifies, however, that such “[a]n appeal…is limited to the

issues of whether a transfer of ownership has occurred and correcting arithmetic errors.”

When an assessor uncaps a taxable value under these circumstances (i.e., a delayed

uncapping due to a failure on the part of a transferee to report a transfer of ownership in

a timely manner), the assessor must immediately notify the transferee in writing that

it is the assessor’s determination that a transfer of ownership occurred and that the

taxable value of the transferred property has been uncapped. At that time, the assessor

must also advise the transferee of the transferee’s right to appeal the matter to the

Michigan Tax Tribunal. This appeal is to be made within 35 days of the notice from the

assessor.

Can a delayed uncapping due to the failure of a transferee to file a Property

Transfer Affidavit in a timely manner be processed by a July or December Board of

Review?

No. No legal authorization exists for a July or December Board of Review to process a

delayed uncapping under these circumstances.

What happens if a delayed uncapping is the result of a clerical error on the part

of an assessor or a mutual mistake of fact?

If a delayed uncapping is the result of a clerical error on the part of an assessor or a

mutual mistake of fact, the delayed uncapping can be processed by the July or

December Board of Review using the same procedures that are used to process other

clerical errors and mutual mistakes of fact. These procedures include all notification

procedures.

Is there a limit on the number of years of additional property taxes for which a

property owner can be liable if a delayed uncapping is the result of a clerical error

on the part of the assessor (or a mutual mistake of fact)?

Yes. As discussed above, such delayed uncappings are processed by the July or

December Board of Review. The authority of the July or December Board of Review

in such matters is limited to correction for the current tax year (the year the error or

mistake is corrected) and the immediately preceding tax year. Although assessors are

required to recalculate taxable values starting with the year following the transfer of

ownership, only the taxable values for the current tax year and, if appropriate, the

immediately preceding tax year can be corrected. See MCL 211.27a(4) which refers to

MCL 211.53b.

Example: In May of 2011 a local assessor discovers that a transfer of ownership

occurred in 2007 and that the taxable value of the property involved was not uncapped

for 2008 (even though the transfer was timely reported by the buyer of the property using

a Property Transfer Affidavit). The assessor also verifies that the reason for the failure

to uncap the property’s taxable value was a clerical error. Under these circumstances,

the taxable values for the property for 2008 through 2011 will be recalculated, however

only the 2011 and 2012 taxable values can be changed by the 2012 July or December

Board of Review. The property owner will be billed for the additional taxes for these two

years.

What happens if a local assessor becomes aware of a transfer of ownership which

did not result in a taxable value uncapping due to a failure on the part of the

transferee to file a Property Transfer Affidavit in a timely manner, but a

subsequent transfer of ownership has occurred for this same property?

Under these circumstances, Michigan law allows the local taxing unit to sue the transferee

who did not report the first transfer of ownership. The local taxing unit may sue for

all of the following:

1. Any additional taxes that would have been levied from the date of transfer if the

transfer of ownership had been reported as required

2. Interest and penalty from the date the tax would have been levied

3. The penalties as described in the Property Transfer Affidavit section

The taxable value(s) of the property are not actually changed due to the first transfer of

ownership. Also, what would have been additional taxes, etc. do not become a lien

on the property. It is the former owner, not the current owner, who can be sued. The

current owner of the property is not held responsible for the additional taxes, etc.

which are the result of a previous owner’s failure to timely file a Property Transfer

Affidavit.

APPENDIX

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

IMPORTANT: The definitions in this glossary are not intended as legal definitions but are

provided only as an aid to the reader for the purpose of interpreting PA 415 of 1994.

Affiliated Group - Affiliated group is defined in MCL 211.7a(7)(j) as 1 or more corporations

connected by stock ownership to a common parent corporation.

Beneficiary - The beneficiary of a trust is the person(s) who has the enjoyment and the beneficial

use of the property during the life of the trust.

Capped Value Formula -Capped Value = (Prior Year's Taxable Value - Losses) X (The lowest

of 1.05, or the inflation rate, or the Value Change Multiplier) + Additions.

Common Control - Common control is as defined in Michigan Revenue Administrative Bulletin

1989-48. You may obtain a copy by calling 1-800-FORM-2-ME.

Contingent Beneficiary -A person who is not now a beneficiary but will become a beneficiary if

some specified event occurs in the future such as the death of the present beneficiary.

Conveyance - A written instrument (such as a deed or a lease) that passes an interest in real

property from one person to another.

Corporation - An organization, incorporated under the laws of 1 of the 50 states; that acts as a

separate legal entity in performing certain activities. A Michigan corporation is required to file

certain documents with the Michigan Department of Commerce and is assigned a corporate

identification number by the department. See MCL 450.1104 for more information about

corporations.

Decedent - A person who has died (deceased)

Deed - A written legal document whose purpose is to convey an interest in real property.

Distributee - A distributee of a trust is a person(s) who receives a share of the property of a trust

when the property is distributed.

Fee Simple Estate - Absolute ownership subject only to the governmental powers of taxation,

eminent domain, police power and taxation.

Grantor - In a sale involving a deed, the grantor is the seller.

Grantee In a sale involving a deed, the grantee is the buyer.

Joint Tenancy - A type of co-ownership in which the co-owners own a partial interest in an entire

property and when one of the co-owners dies, the decedent's ownership interest goes to the other

co-owners, not to the decedent's heirs. The ownership interests in a joint tenancy must be equal

shares. In order to create a joint tenancy, the "four unities" of time, title, interest, and possession

must be present. 1) The unity of time means that the interests of all of the tenants start at the same

time. 2) The unity of title means that all of the tenants acquire title by one and the same instrument

(usually a deed). 3) The unity of interest means that all of the tenants have the same ownership

interest. 4) The unity of possession means that all of the tenants have the same right of possession

and use of the property.

Land Contract - A contract in which a buyer of real estate makes payments (usually monthly) to

the seller until the entire purchase price has been paid, at which time the seller gives a deed to the

buyer.

Lessor - The person in a lease who owns the property (the landlord).

Lessee - The person in a lease who uses or occupies the property during the term of the lease (the

tenant).

Limited Partnership - A limited partnership is different from a limited liability partnership. A

limited partnership is an ownership arrangement made up of general partners and limited partners.

The general partners are the business managers and assume the liability for the debts of the

partnership. The limited partners are liable only to the extent of their own capital contributions.

See MCL 449.1101 for more information about limited partnerships

Limited Liability Company - A limited liability company (LLC) is type of business that has

characteristics of both a partnership and a corporation. Like a partnership, the profits and losses of

a limited liability company pass through to its members. Like a corporation, the members of a

limited liability company are not liable for the acts, debts, or obligations of the company. A

Michigan limited liability company must file certain documents with the Michigan Department of

Commerce and is assigned a limited liability company identification number by the department.

See MCL 450.4102 for more information about limited liability companies.

Limited Liability Partnership - A limited liability partnership is different from a limited

partnership. A limited liability partnership is a limited liability company which happens to be a

partnership. See MCL 450.4102 for more information about limited liability companies.

Mortgagor - The person in a mortgage who is borrowing money.

Mortgagee - The person in a mortgage who is lending the money (usually a bank or a mortgage

company).

Partnership - An unincorporated legal entity in which 2 or more people jointly own a business.

See MCL 449.1 for more information about partnerships.

Quitclaim Deed - A deed in which the seller conveys an ownership interest in real property but

does not guarantee that he/she has good title. A seller who is not sure whether his/her title is good

will usually use a quitclaim deed.

Redemption - The term redemption, as it applies to lands which may become "tax reverted lands",

refers to the right of an owner to buy back (redeem) lands from a lien buyer by paying the

applicable back taxes and other fees.

Sandwich Lease - The following is an example of a sandwich lease: A lease in which the lessee

(user of the property) from an original lease subleases the property to a second lessee who becomes

the new user of the property.

Settlor - The settlor of a trust is the person(s) who creates the trust. The term "trustor" has the

same meaning as settlor.

SEV - State Equalized Value - The state equalized value is the assessed value after equalization at

the county and state levels. The SEV of a property approximates 50% of true cash value.

Sheriff's Deed - A deed given by the county sheriff to a person who buys property at the public

sale which is a part of foreclosure by advertisement. The deed becomes operative only if the

property is not redeemed.

Sole Proprietorship - A sole (or single) proprietorship is an unincorporated business owned by

an individual who is held solely responsible for the debts of the business.

Spouse - A spouse is a husband or wife.

Sublessor - A sublessor is a lessee (the user of leased property) who leases the property to another

party. The sublessor is neither the owner of the property nor the present user of the property but is

a former user of the property. Example: A, the owner of rental property, leases to B who operates

a store at the property. B decides to go out of business but subleases the property to C who now

becomes the user of the property. In this example, B is a sublessor.

Taxable Value Formula Taxable Value is the lesser of the State Equalized Value (SEV) or the

Capped Value for each individual parcel of property. In the year following a "transfer of

ownership", the Taxable Value of an individual parcel shall be the same as the SEV of the parcel

for the year following the "transfer of ownership".

Tax Reverted Lands - Property which the State of Michigan acquires title to due to the

nonpayment of property taxes.

Tenancy By Entireties - A form of joint tenancy where the co-owners are husband and wife and

when the husband or wife dies, the property goes to the surviving spouse. In a tenancy by the

entireties, neither husband nor wife can sell the property unless the other one joins in.

Tenancy In Common - A type of co-ownership in which the co-owners own a partial interest in

an entire property and when one of the co-owners dies, the ownership interest of the person who

has died goes into his/her heirs, not automatically to the other co-owners. The ownership interests

in a tenancy in common do not have to be equal shares.

Transfer for Security -A transfer for security is the conveying of an interest in property for the

purpose of assuring that a debt will be paid. In the case of a mortgage to a bank, the owner of a

property gives a security interest to the bank which allows the bank to foreclose the mortgage and

eventually take the property if the payments are not made.

Transferor - The person or legal entity which conveys the title to or a present interest in a property.

The transferor is frequently the seller of property.

Transferee - The person or legal entity to whom the title or present interest in a property is

conveyed. The transferee is frequently the buyer of property.

True Cash Value - True Cash Value is defined in MCL 211.27(1). The courts have held that True

Cash Value is the same as Market Value.

Trustor - The trustor of a trust is the person who creates the trust. Trustor means the same as

settlor.

Trustee - The trustee of a trust is the person or agent who is appointed to administer the trust.

Banks are frequently trustees.

Value Change Multiplier - The Value Change Multiplier is calculated for each parcel of property

by dividing (Current SEV - Additions) by (Last Year's SEV - Losses).

Vendor - The seller of property.

Vendee - The buyer of property.

Warranty Deed - A deed in which the grantor (seller) guarantees that the title to the property is

free and clear of all encumbrances except those specifically set forth in the deed.

THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ACT (EXCERPT)

Act 206 of 1893

211.27a Property tax assessment; determining taxable value; adjustment; exception;

"transfer of ownership" defined; qualified agricultural property; notice of transfer of

property; notification of recorded transaction; definitions.

Sec. 27a. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, property shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash

value under section 3 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), for taxes levied in 1995 and for each year after 1995,

the taxable value of each parcel of property is the lesser of the following:

(a) The property's taxable value in the immediately preceding year minus any losses, multiplied by the

lesser of 1.05 or the inflation rate, plus all additions. For taxes levied in 1995, the property's taxable value in

the immediately preceding year is the property's state equalized valuation in 1994.

(b) The property's current state equalized valuation.

(3) Upon a transfer of ownership of property after 1994, the property's taxable value for the calendar year

following the year of the transfer is the property's state equalized valuation for the calendar year following the

transfer.

(4) If the taxable value of property is adjusted under subsection (3), a subsequent increase in the property's

taxable value is subject to the limitation set forth in subsection (2) until a subsequent transfer of ownership

occurs. If the taxable value of property is adjusted under subsection (3) and the assessor determines that there

had not been a transfer of ownership, the taxable value of the property shall be adjusted at the July or

December board of review. Notwithstanding the limitation provided in section 53b(1) on the number of years

for which a correction may be made, the July or December board of review may adjust the taxable value of

property under this subsection for the current year and for the 3 immediately preceding calendar years. A

corrected tax bill shall be issued for each tax year for which the taxable value is adjusted by the local tax

collecting unit if the local tax collecting unit has possession of the tax roll or by the county treasurer if the

county has possession of the tax roll. For purposes of section 53b, an adjustment under this subsection shall

be considered the correction of a clerical error.

(5) Assessment of property, as required in this section and section 27, is inapplicable to the assessment of

property subject to the levy of ad valorem taxes within voted tax limitation increases to pay principal and

interest on limited tax bonds issued by any governmental unit, including a county, township, community

college district, or school district, before January 1, 1964, if the assessment required to be made under this act

would be less than the assessment as state equalized prevailing on the property at the time of the issuance of

the bonds. This inapplicability continues until levy of taxes to pay principal and interest on the bonds is no

longer required. The assessment of property required by this act applies for all other purposes.

(6) As used in this act, "transfer of ownership" means the conveyance of title to or a present interest in

property, including the beneficial use of the property, the value of which is substantially equal to the value of

the fee interest. Transfer of ownership of property includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) A conveyance by deed.

(b) A conveyance by land contract. The taxable value of property conveyed by a land contract executed

after December 31, 1994 shall be adjusted under subsection (3) for the calendar year following the year in

which the contract is entered into and shall not be subsequently adjusted under subsection (3) when the deed

conveying title to the property is recorded in the office of the register of deeds in the county in which the

property is located.

(i) If the settlor or the settlor's spouse, or both, conveys the property to the trust and the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries are the settlor or the settlor's spouse, or both.

(ii) Beginning December 31, 2014, for residential real property, if the settlor or the settlor's spouse, or

both, conveys the residential real property to the trust and the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries are the

settlor's or the settlor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter,

grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following

the conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the sole present beneficiary or

beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries meet the

requirements of this subparagraph. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the department of

treasury or assessor under this subparagraph, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(d) A conveyance by distribution from a trust, except under any of the following conditions:

(i) If the distributee is the sole present beneficiary or the spouse of the sole present beneficiary, or both.

(ii) Beginning December 31, 2014, a distribution of residential real property if the distributee is the settlor's

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

or the settlor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson,

or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the sole present beneficiary or

beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries meet the

requirements of this subparagraph. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the department of

treasury or assessor under this subparagraph, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(e) A change in the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries of a trust, except under any of the following

conditions:

(i) A change that adds or substitutes the spouse of the sole present beneficiary.

(ii) Beginning December 31, 2014, for residential real property, a change that adds or substitutes the

settlor's or the settlor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter,

grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following

the conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the sole present beneficiary or

beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries meet the

requirements of this subparagraph. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the department of

treasury or assessor under this subparagraph, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(f) A conveyance by distribution under a will or by intestate succession, except under any of the following

conditions:

(i) If the distributee is the decedent's spouse.

(ii) Beginning December 31, 2014, for residential real property, if the distributee is the decedent's or the

decedent's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or

granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following the

conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the sole present beneficiary or

beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries meet the

requirements of this subparagraph. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the department of

treasury or assessor under this subparagraph, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(g) A conveyance by lease if the total duration of the lease, including the initial term and all options for

renewal, is more than 35 years or the lease grants the lessee a bargain purchase option. As used in this

subdivision, "bargain purchase option" means the right to purchase the property at the termination of the lease

for not more than 80% of the property's projected true cash value at the termination of the lease. After

December 31, 1994, the taxable value of property conveyed by a lease with a total duration of more than 35

years or with a bargain purchase option shall be adjusted under subsection (3) for the calendar year following

the year in which the lease is entered into. This subdivision does not apply to personal property except

buildings described in section 14(6) and personal property described in section 8(h), (i), and (j). This

subdivision does not apply to that portion of the property not subject to the leasehold interest conveyed.

(h) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a conveyance of an ownership interest in a

corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or other

legal entity if the ownership interest conveyed is more than 50% of the corporation, partnership, sole

proprietorship, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or other legal entity. Unless notification

is provided under subsection (10), the corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company,

limited liability partnership, or other legal entity shall notify the assessing officer on a form provided by the

state tax commission not more than 45 days after a conveyance of an ownership interest that constitutes a

transfer of ownership under this subdivision. Both of the following apply to a corporation subject to 1897 PA

230, MCL 455.1 to 455.24:

(i) A transfer of stock of the corporation is a transfer of ownership only with respect to the real property

that is assessed to the transferor lessee stockholder.

(ii) A cumulative conveyance of more than 50% of the corporation's stock does not constitute a transfer of

ownership of the corporation's real property.

(i) A transfer of property held as a tenancy in common, except that portion of the property not subject to

the ownership interest conveyed.

(j) A conveyance of an ownership interest in a cooperative housing corporation, except that portion of the

property not subject to the ownership interest conveyed.

(k) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7ee(5), at the request of a property owner, an assessor's

establishment of a separate tax parcel for a portion of a parcel that ceases to be qualified agricultural property

but is not subject to a land division under the land division act, 1967 PA 288, MCL 560.101 to 560.293, or

any local ordinance. For purposes of this subdivision, a transfer of ownership occurs only as to that portion of

the parcel established as a separate tax parcel and only that portion shall have its taxable value adjusted under

subsection (3) and shall be subject to the recapture tax provided for under the agricultural property recapture

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 2 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 211.1001 to 211.1007. The adjustment under subsection (3) shall be made as of the

December 31 in the year that the portion of the parcel established as a separate tax parcel ceases to be

qualified agricultural property. A portion of a parcel subject to this subdivision is considered a separate tax

parcel only for those purposes described in this subdivision.

(7) Transfer of ownership does not include the following:

(a) The transfer of property from 1 spouse to the other spouse or from a decedent to a surviving spouse.

(b) A transfer from a husband, a wife, or a married couple creating or disjoining a tenancy by the entireties

in the grantors or the grantor and his or her spouse.

retained by the transferor, until expiration or termination of the life estate or life lease. That portion of

property transferred that is not subject to a life lease shall be adjusted under subsection (3).

(d) Beginning December 31, 2014, a transfer of that portion of residential real property that had been

subject to a life estate or life lease retained by the transferor resulting from expiration or termination of that

life estate or life lease, if the transferee is the transferor's or transferor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister,

son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is

not used for any commercial purpose following the transfer. Upon request by the department of treasury or

the assessor, the transferee shall furnish proof within 30 days that the transferee meets the requirements of this

subdivision. If a transferee fails to comply with a request by the department of treasury or assessor under this

subdivision, that transferee is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(e) A transfer through foreclosure or forfeiture of a recorded instrument under chapter 31, 32, or 57 of the

revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3101 to 600.3285 and MCL 600.5701 to 600.5759, or

through deed or conveyance in lieu of a foreclosure or forfeiture, until the mortgagee or land contract vendor

subsequently transfers the property. If a mortgagee does not transfer the property within 1 year of the

expiration of any applicable redemption period, the property shall be adjusted under subsection (3).

(f) A transfer by redemption by the person to whom taxes are assessed of property previously sold for

delinquent taxes.

(g) A conveyance to a trust if the settlor or the settlor's spouse, or both, conveys the property to the trust

and any of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) If the sole present beneficiary of the trust is the settlor or the settlor's spouse, or both.

(ii) Beginning December 31, 2014, for residential real property, if the sole present beneficiary of the trust

is the settlor's or the settlor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted

daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose

following the conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the sole present

beneficiary or beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries

meet the requirements of this subparagraph. If a present beneficiary fails to comply with a request by the

department of treasury or assessor under this subparagraph, that present beneficiary is subject to a fine of

$200.00.

(h) A transfer pursuant to a judgment or order of a court of record making or ordering a transfer, unless a

specific monetary consideration is specified or ordered by the court for the transfer.

(i) A transfer creating or terminating a joint tenancy between 2 or more persons if at least 1 of the persons

was an original owner of the property before the joint tenancy was initially created and, if the property is held

as a joint tenancy at the time of conveyance, at least 1 of the persons was a joint tenant when the joint tenancy

was initially created and that person has remained a joint tenant since the joint tenancy was initially created. A

joint owner at the time of the last transfer of ownership of the property is an original owner of the property.

For purposes of this subdivision, a person is an original owner of property owned by that person's spouse.

(j) A transfer for security or an assignment or discharge of a security interest.

(k) A transfer of real property or other ownership interests among members of an affiliated group. As used

in this subsection, "affiliated group" means 1 or more corporations connected by stock ownership to a

common parent corporation. Upon request by the state tax commission, a corporation shall furnish proof

within 45 days that a transfer meets the requirements of this subdivision. A corporation that fails to comply

with a request by the state tax commission under this subdivision is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(l) Normal public trading of shares of stock or other ownership interests that, over any period of time,

cumulatively represent more than 50% of the total ownership interest in a corporation or other legal entity and

are traded in multiple transactions involving unrelated individuals, institutions, or other legal entities.

(m) A transfer of real property or other ownership interests among corporations, partnerships, limited

liability companies, limited liability partnerships, or other legal entities if the entities involved are commonly

controlled. Upon request by the state tax commission, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company,

limited liability partnership, or other legal entity shall furnish proof within 45 days that a transfer meets the

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 3 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

requirements of this subdivision. A corporation, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability

partnership, or other legal entity that fails to comply with a request by the state tax commission under this

subdivision is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(n) A direct or indirect transfer of real property or other ownership interests resulting from a transaction

that qualifies as a tax-free reorganization under section 368 of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 368. Upon

request by the state tax commission, a property owner shall furnish proof within 45 days that a transfer meets

the requirements of this subdivision. A property owner who fails to comply with a request by the state tax

commission under this subdivision is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(o) Except as provided in subsection (6)(k), a transfer of qualified agricultural property, if the person to

whom the qualified agricultural property is transferred files an affidavit with the assessor of the local tax

collecting unit in which the qualified agricultural property is located and with the register of deeds for the

county in which the qualified agricultural property is located attesting that the qualified agricultural property

will remain qualified agricultural property. The affidavit under this subdivision shall be in a form prescribed

by the department of treasury. An owner of qualified agricultural property shall inform a prospective buyer of

that qualified agricultural property that the qualified agricultural property is subject to the recapture tax

provided in the agricultural property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 211.1001 to 211.1007, if the qualified

agricultural property is converted by a change in use, as that term is defined in section 2 of the agricultural

property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 211.1002. If property ceases to be qualified agricultural property

at any time after a transfer subject to this subdivision, all of the following shall occur:

(i) The taxable value of that property, or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a

separate tax parcel, shall be adjusted under subsection (3) as of the December 31 in the year that the property,

or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a separate tax parcel, ceases to be qualified

agricultural property.

(ii) The property, or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a separate tax parcel, is

subject to the recapture tax provided for under the agricultural property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL

211.1001 to 211.1007.

(p) A transfer of qualified forest property, if the person to whom the qualified forest property is transferred

files a qualified forest taxable value affidavit with the assessor of the local tax collecting unit in which the

qualified forest property is located and with the register of deeds for the county in which the qualified forest

property is located attesting that the qualified forest property will remain qualified forest property. The

qualified forest taxable value affidavit under this subdivision shall be in a form prescribed by the department

of agriculture and rural development. The qualified forest taxable value affidavit shall include a legal

description of the qualified forest property, the name of the new property owner, the year the transfer of the

property occurred, a statement indicating that the property owner is attesting that the property for which the

exemption is claimed is qualified forest property and will be managed according to the approved forest

management plan, and any other information pertinent to the parcel and the property owner. The property

owner shall provide a copy of the qualified forest taxable value affidavit to the department. The department

shall provide 1 copy of the qualified forest taxable value affidavit to the local tax collecting unit, 1 copy to the

conservation district, and 1 copy to the department of treasury. These copies may be sent electronically. The

exception to the recognition of a transfer of ownership, as herein stated, extends to the land only of the

qualified forest property. If qualified forest property is improved by buildings, structures, or land

improvements, then those improvements shall be recognized as a transfer of ownership, in accordance with

the provisions of section 7jj[1]. An owner of qualified forest property shall inform a prospective buyer of that

qualified forest property that the qualified forest property is subject to the recapture tax provided in the

qualified forest property recapture tax act, 2006 PA 379, MCL 211.1031 to 211.1036, if the qualified forest

property is converted by a change in use, as that term is defined in section 2 of the qualified forest property

recapture tax act, 2006 PA 379, MCL 211.1032. If property ceases to be qualified forest property at any time

after being transferred, all of the following shall occur:

(i) The taxable value of that property shall be adjusted under subsection (3) as of the December 31 in the

year that the property ceases to be qualified forest property, except to the extent that the transfer of the

qualified forest property would not have been considered a transfer of ownership under this subsection.

(ii) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (iii), the property is subject to the recapture tax provided

for under the qualified forest property recapture tax act, 2006 PA 379, MCL 211.1031 to 211.1036.

(iii) Beginning June 1, 2013 and ending November 30, 2013, owners of property enrolled as qualified

forest property before January 1, 2013 may execute a new qualified forest taxable value affidavit with the

department of agriculture and rural development. If a landowner elects to execute a qualified forest taxable

value affidavit, that owner is not required to pay the $50.00 fee required under section 7jj[1](2). If a

landowner elects not to execute a qualified forest taxable value affidavit, the existing affidavit shall be

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 4 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

rescinded, without subjecting the property to the recapture tax provided for under the qualified forest property

recapture tax act, 2006 PA 379, MCL 211.1031 to 211.1036, and the taxable value of that property shall be

adjusted under subsection (3).

(q) Beginning on December 8, 2006, a transfer of land, but not buildings or structures located on the land,

which meets 1 or more of the following requirements:

(i) The land is subject to a conservation easement under subpart 11 of part 21 of the natural resources and

environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.2140 to 324.2144. As used in this subparagraph,

"conservation easement" means that term as defined in section 2140 of the natural resources and

environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.2140.

(ii) A transfer of ownership of the land or a transfer of an interest in the land is eligible for a deduction as a

qualified conservation contribution under section 170(h) of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 170.

(r) A transfer of real property or other ownership interests resulting from a consolidation or merger of a

domestic nonprofit corporation that is a boy or girl scout or camp fire girls organization, a 4-H club or

foundation, a young men's Christian association, or a young women's Christian association and at least 50%

of the members of that organization or association are residents of this state.

(s) A change to the assessment roll or tax roll resulting from the application of section 16a of 1897 PA 230,

MCL 455.16a.

(t) Beginning December 31, 2013 through December 30, 2014, a transfer of residential real property if the

transferee is related to the transferor by blood or affinity to the first degree and the use of the residential real

property does not change following the transfer.

(u) Beginning December 31, 2014, a transfer of residential real property if the transferee is the transferor's

or the transferor's spouse's mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter,

grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real property is not used for any commercial purpose following

the conveyance. Upon request by the department of treasury or the assessor, the transferee shall furnish proof

within 30 days that the transferee meets the requirements of this subdivision. If a transferee fails to comply

with a request by the department of treasury or assessor under this subdivision, that transferee is subject to a

fine of $200.00.

(v) Beginning December 31, 2014, for residential real property, a conveyance from a trust if the person to

whom the residential real property is conveyed is the settlor's or the settlor's spouse's mother, father, brother,

sister, son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, grandson, or granddaughter and the residential real

property is not used for any commercial purpose following the conveyance. Upon request by the department

of treasury or the assessor, the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries shall furnish proof within 30 days that

the sole present beneficiary or beneficiaries meet the requirements of this subdivision. If a present beneficiary

fails to comply with a request by the department of treasury or assessor under this subdivision, that present

beneficiary is subject to a fine of $200.00.

(w) Beginning on March 31, 2015, a conveyance of land by distribution under a will or trust or by intestate

succession, but not buildings or structures located on the land, which meets 1 or more of the following

requirements:

(i) The land is made subject to a conservation easement under subpart 11 of part 21 of the natural resources

and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.2140 to 324.2144, prior to the conveyance by

distribution under a will or trust or by intestate succession. As used in this subparagraph, "conservation

easement" means that term as defined in section 2140 of the natural resources and environmental protection

act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.2140.

(ii) The land or an interest in the land is made eligible for a deduction as a qualified conservation

contribution under section 170(h) of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 170, prior to the conveyance by

distribution under a will or trust or by intestate succession.

(x) A conveyance of property under section 2120a(6) of the natural resources and environmental protection

act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.2120a.

(8) If all of the following conditions are satisfied, the local tax collecting unit shall revise the taxable value

of qualified agricultural property taxable on the tax roll in the possession of that local tax collecting unit to the

taxable value that qualified agricultural property would have had if there had been no transfer of ownership of

that qualified agricultural property since December 31, 1999 and there had been no adjustment of that

qualified agricultural property's taxable value under subsection (3) since December 31, 1999:

(a) The qualified agricultural property was qualified agricultural property for taxes levied in 1999 and each

year after 1999.

(b) The owner of the qualified agricultural property files an affidavit with the assessor of the local tax

collecting unit under subsection (7)(o).

(9) If the taxable value of qualified agricultural property is adjusted under subsection (8), the owner of that

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 5 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

qualified agricultural property is not entitled to a refund for any property taxes collected under this act on that

qualified agricultural property before the adjustment under subsection (8).

(10) The register of deeds of the county where deeds or other title documents are recorded shall notify the

assessing officer of the appropriate local taxing unit not less than once each month of any recorded transaction

involving the ownership of property and shall make any recorded deeds or other title documents available to

that county's tax or equalization department. Unless notification is provided under subsection (6), the buyer,

grantee, or other transferee of the property shall notify the appropriate assessing office in the local unit of

government in which the property is located of the transfer of ownership of the property within 45 days of the

transfer of ownership, on a form prescribed by the state tax commission that states the parties to the transfer,

the date of the transfer, the actual consideration for the transfer, and the property's parcel identification

number or legal description. Forms filed in the assessing office of a local unit of government under this

subsection shall be made available to the county tax or equalization department for the county in which that

local unit of government is located. This subsection does not apply to personal property except buildings

described in section 14(6) and personal property described in section 8(h), (i), and (j).

(11) As used in this section:

(a) "Additions" means that term as defined in section 34d.

(b) "Beneficial use" means the right to possession, use, and enjoyment of property, limited only by

encumbrances, easements, and restrictions of record.

profit, but does not include the rental of residential real property for a period of less than 15 days in a calendar

year.

(d) "Inflation rate" means that term as defined in section 34d.

(e) "Losses" means that term as defined in section 34d.

(f) "Qualified agricultural property" means that term as defined in section 7dd.

(g) "Qualified forest property" means that term as defined in section 7jj[1].

(h) "Residential real property" means real property classified as residential real property under section 34c.

History: Add. 1982, Act 539, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983;Am. 1993, Act 145, Imd. Eff. Aug. 19, 1993;Am. 1993, Act 313, Eff. Mar. 15,

1994;Am. 1994, Act 415, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1994;Am. 1996, Act 476, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996;Am. 2000, Act 260, Eff. Mar. 28,

2001;Am. 2005, Act 23, Imd. Eff. May 23, 2005;Am. 2006, Act 378, Imd. Eff. Sept. 27, 2006;Am. 2006, Act 446, Imd. Eff. Dec.

8, 2006;Am. 2008, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 2009;Am. 2012, Act 47, Imd. Eff. Mar. 13, 2012;Am. 2012, Act 497, Imd. Eff.

Dec. 28, 2012;Am. 2013, Act 50, Imd. Eff. June 6, 2013;Am. 2014, Act 310, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 2014;Am. 2014, Act 535, Eff.

Mar. 31, 2015;Am. 2015, Act 19, Imd. Eff. Apr. 29, 2015;Am. 2015, Act 243, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2015;Am. 2016, Act 375, Imd.

Eff. Dec. 22, 2016.

Popular name: Act 206

Compiler's note: Enacting section 1 of Act 243 of 2015 provides:

"Enacting section 1. Section 27a(7)(d) of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.27a, as added by this amendatory act,

is retroactive and is effective for taxes levied after December 31, 2014."

Rendered Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 6 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 123 of 2017

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

HOMESTEAD AND QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL

Michigan Department of Treasury

3214 (Rev. 8-09)

Assessor Affidavit Regarding "Uncapping" of Taxable Value

In accordance with the authority identified in Section 27b of the General Property Tax Act (P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended), a correction

has been made in the Taxable Value of the following described Real/Personal property:

___________________________________ located in the City of/Township of/Village of __________________________________.

(Parcel Identification Number)

County

Correction of Taxable Value Due to Transfer of Ownership

Correction of Taxing Unit Levy

Taxing Unit

County

Intermediate School District

Community College

State Education Tax

Local School Operating

Local School Supplemental (<=18)

Local School Supplemental (>=18)

Local School Enhancement

Local School Debt

City/Township/Village

Other

Total

Amount of

Increase/Decrease

NON-HOMESTEAD AND NON-QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL

Before Correction Corrected Before Correction

I, _______________________________________, being the certified assessor for the City/Twp of ___________________________, do hereby swear or affirm that

the above information is true, to the best of my knowledge.

School Code

State Equalized Valuation

Taxable Valuation

Copies to: Property Owner, Equalization Department, County Treasurer, and the Treasurers of all other affected Taxing Units.

The changes in Taxable Value recorded on this affidavit are related to the "Uncapping" of Taxable Value due to a failure on the part of the

transferee (buyer) to timely file the Property Transfer Affidavit (form L-4260).

Corrected

Before Correction Corrected Before Correction Corrected

NOTE: The levy section of this affidavit does not include collections fees, penalties, and interest. These must be added to the bill, when applicable, by the treasurer.

This is a correction to the

________ Assessment/Tax Roll.

(Tax Year)

HOMESTEAD AND QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL NON-HOMESTEAD AND NON-QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL

Amount of

Increase/Decrease

Amount of

Increase/Decrease

Amount of

Increase/Decrease

Signature of Certified Assessor Date Certification

No.

Reset Form

STATE

MICHIGAN

DEP,

JOHN

ENGLER.Obvemor

RTMENT

TREAS

JR7

DOUGLAS

ROBERTS.

stno

Treasurer

STATE

TAX

COMMISSION

Lansing.

Mlmn

48909.7971

Telephww,

(417)

373-05ad

-FAX

(517)

373.3553

P.0.

Boo(

30471

BULLETIN-

No.

DECEMBER

12,

1997

“FOLLOWING

!%LES”

AND

ASSESSING

OVER

5ox

TO:

ASSeSSOrS

Equalization

Directors

FROM:

State

Tax

Commission

(STC)

RE:

THE

ILLEGAL

PRACTICES

OF:

“FOLLOWING

SALES”

AND

ASSESSING

OVER

50%

The

State

Tax

Commission is

very

concerned about

reports

that

some

assessors have engaged

the illegal practices

“following

sales’’

and

assessing

over 50%

true

cash

value.

The

purpose

this

bulletin is

provide instruction to assessors regarding these illegal

practices.

“Pollowing

Sales”

“Following

sales”

described

the

State

Tax

Commission

Assessor’s

Manual

the

practice

ignoring

the

assessments

properties

which

HAVE

NOT

RECENTLY

SOLD

while

making

significant changes

the

assessments

propdies

which

HAVE

RECENTLY

SOLD.

“Following sales”

can

also

described

the practice

assessing properties which

HAVE

RECENTLY

SOLD

significantly differently

from

properties

which

HAVE

NOT

RECENTLY

SOLD.

1997 Bulletin Index

Main Menu

Bulletins and Letters Menu

Article

IX,

Section

of the State Constitution states that “The legislature shall provide

for the

UNIFORM

general ad valorem taxation of real and tangible personal property

...”

This

requirement

has

NOT changed

a result of Proposal

Section

27(5)

of the General Property

Tax

Act states the following:

“In

determining the true cash value of transferred property, an assZssing

officer shall assess that property using the same valuation method used

to value all other property

that same classification

the assessing

jurisdiction.”

The following example illustrates the illegal practice of “following sales”.

EXAMPLE:

assessor

has

been notified by the equalizaton department that

the starting

base

for the residential class

hidher unit is

45.45%.

This

means

that

necessary

for

the

assessor to

increase

the residentidclass overall by

about

10%

order

avoid a factor. It

the assessor’s responsibility to

determine where

this

increase should

spread

in order that all properties are

assessed at

50%.

It would

illegal for the assessor

generally increase properties which have

recently sold by say

25%

while increasing all other properties in a neighborhood

by say

5%.

This

would be an example of the illegal practice

“following sales”.

“Following sales” is both UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AND

ILLEGAL.

exception

would

occur

where an assessor inspects a property after a transfer

ownership and

discovers that there is omitted property such

a garage which

was

built

the past but

was not included in the assessment and

was

not noted on the assessment card. In

this

case the assessor must include the omitted property

the assessed value for

the

year

following the transfer of ownership.

If the assessor is doing a proper job of assessing all properties uniformly at

50%

of true

cash value each year, there

no reason to

assess

properties which have sold any

differently fiom properties which have not sold.

In a related matter, some assessors believe that Proposal

requires that,

the year

following a transfer of ownership, the assessed value of a property which has transferred

must automatically be set at

‘/z

of the sale price.

Proposal

does

NOT

authorize the

assessor

AUTOMATICALLY

set the assessed value

a property which has sold

‘/z

the sale price.

individual sale price may NOT be a good indicator

the true

cash value of the property due to a variety of reasons (such

uninformed buyer, an

uninformed seller, insufficient marketing time, buyer and seller are relatives, and other

possible reasons).

Assessing

Over

50%

has

come to

the

attention of

the

State

Tax

Commission that some

assessors

are

making

practice

assessing

properties

excess

50%

true

cash

value.

This

illegal

practice.

Article

IX,

Section

ofthe State Constitution

states

that the assessment &property

SMI

not exceed

50%

its true

cash

value.

Section

27a

the General Property

Tax

Act

states that property

shall

assessed

at 50%

its

true

cash

value.

County equalization departments

are

required

study

every classification

property

every

year

and

report

the

starting

ratios

assessors

that

the

assessors

know how

much

asscssmcnts

must

changed

overall

order

avoid

equalization factor

greater

less

than

1.0000.

County

equalization

directors

are

required

use

month

period

sales when

studying

class

property.

This

true

whether the

director

prepares

assessmcnt/sales ratio study

appraisal

study

(An

exception

this

occurs

where

there

severely declining

real

estate market, in which

case

single

year

study

may

substituted

for

two

year

study.)

The

month time

period

which equalization directors

must

use

setting

the

starting

base

for

1998

assessments is

foIlows:

Year

April

1,1995

to March 31,1996

Year

April

1,1996 to March 31,1997

ASSESSORS

ARE

REQ-D

USE

TRTS

SAME

MONTH

TIME

PERIOD

FOR

SALES

USED

FOR

CALCULATING ECONOMIC CONDITION

FACTORS

@CF’S)

AND

LAND

VALUES.

This

means that

assessors

are NOT allowed to incorporate the market value

INCREASES

from

sales

occurring

the

last

months of

1997

into

the

assessments

for

1998.

could cause assessments to

exceed

50%

of true cash value.

assessments exceed

so%,

the responsibility of

the

County

Board

Commissioners

to apply

factor of

less

than 1.oooO in

order

to reduce the

assessments

down

50%.

This

meam that

for

1998

assessments,

assessor

NOT

allowed to

incorporate

market

value increases which have occurred fiom April

1997

to December

1,1997.

The assessor should

also

aware that the County Board of Commissioners

permitted

by the State Tax Commission

equalize

assessed in those classes where the ending

ratio on line

of STC

Form

L-4023

falls between

49.00%

and

50.00%.

This

means that

if an assessor is striving to reach

50%

but ends up, for example, at

49.50%,

equalization factor

.OOOO

will be assigned by the County Board of C&nmissioners,

NOT an equalization factor greater

than

.OOOO.

Assessors

must also

aware that

tbis

same leeway does NOT exist for ratios which fall

between

50.01%

and

51.00%.

The State Tax Commission, in STC Bulletin No.

1996,

advises that a County

Board

of Commissioners

has

the obligation to determine the

correct

true cash value for each class of property for each year even

this

results in a

class

property receiving

equalization factor of less

than

.OOOO.

assessor should

therefore

expect

to receive

equalization factor of less than

.OOOO

if the ratio on line

form

L-4023

exceeds

50%

by any amount, provided that the

starthg

ratio

was

based

reliable and accurate study. (Please

see

page

paragraph C (copy attached)

STC

Bulletin

No.

1996

for

exception to

this

rule when there

has

been

a complete

reappraisal.)

The

State

Tax

Commission intends to closely monitor

this

practice of assessing in excess

50%

for the

1998

assessment year.

Assessors

are advised to review pages

(copies attached) of STC Bulletin

No.

1996

regarding ratios which exceed

50%

of true cash value.

REPRINT

FROM

STC

BULLETIN

NO.

1996

Assemmentn'tue Cash Value

Ratios

Over

50%

STC

Form

JA023

There

has

been some misunderstanding in recent

years

about

the

STC

position

regarding procedures to

when

the ratio

for

class.

property exceeds

50%

on line

the

form

L-4023.

The practice

some

counties

has

been

to automatically reduce

ratio

(which

exceeds

50%)

down

50%

adding

true

cash

value on

line

-07

ofthe

fonn

L-

4023.

The

STC

policy regarding procedures to follow when

ratio

exceeds

50%

line

the

form

L-4023

based

on whether

not

the

starting

ratio

on line

-01

the

form

L-4023

supported

reliable

and

accurate equalization

study.

Procedure

When

Ratio

Line

-05

the

Form

-023

Exceeds

50%

and

the

Ratio

Line

-01

the

Form

MOW

Based

Reliable

and

Accurate

Study

Article

IX,

Section

the Michigan Constitution states that assessments

property

shall

not

exceed

50%

of true

cash

value.

When a ratio on line

-05

Form

L-4023

has

been properly calculated and

exceeds

50%

(except for

the

situation

described

paragraph c below)

and

this

ratio

based

reliable

and

accurate

sales

appraisal

study,

the

constitution and

the

law

quire

that the

County

Board

of Commissioners

apply

equalization factor

less

than

.OW0

order

bring

the

State

Equalized Value

down

50%.

would

INCORRECT

procedure,

this

instance,

add

true

cash

value

line

-07

of the

Form

L-4023

order

reduce

the

ratio

50%

and

thereby have

factor

.OOOO.

example

this

INCORRECT

procedure

shown

Form

L-4023

the

page

labeled

EXAMPLE

#l.

The

County

Board

Commissioners

has

the

obligation to determine

the

correct

true cash

value

for each class

property for

each

year

even

if this

results in

class

property

receiving

county equalization factor of

less

than

1.0000.

See'

also paragraph c below for special provisions

for

units

where a

complete reappraisal

being

implemented.

Important Note:

an equalization department finds

necessary to

submit an amended

L-4018

the

STC,

a full explanation

the

reason for the change must be included.

Procedure When a Ratio

Line

-05

the Form

L-4023

Exceeds

50%

and the Ratio

NOT

Based on

Reliable and Accurate

Study.

Sometimes,

contrary

STC

Rule 209.4

(4),

the ratio on line-05

the

Form

L-4023

NOT

based on a reliable and accurate study such

when

a ratio is based on

unsupported estimate by the equalization

department. When

this

occurs

and the ratio exceeds

50%,

the ratio

shall

be reduced

50%

by adding true cash value

line -07

the

Form

L-

4023.

This

is the procedure outlined in paragraph

on page

Chapter

the

1972

Assessor’s

Manual.

(Chapter

the

1972

Assessor’s

Manual, along with amending

STC

bulletins, constitutes the

applicable

STC

Equalization Chapter.)

true

cash

value

added on line -07

the

form

L-4023,

a hll

explanation

the reason for

this

action must be included.

Any

exception to this procedure

reducing the ratio

50%

the

circumstances described

section

must

accompanied by a complete

explanation

the assessor’s justification

assessments above the

constitutional

maximum

level.

Procedure When the

Ratio on

Line

-05

the

Form

L-4023

Exceeds

50%

and There Has

Been

a Complete Reappraisal in the Unit.

Separate equalization procedures are frequently needed when analyzing

the

ratio

for a unit where

complete reappraisal

has

been implemented on

the current assessment roll. For purposes

this

example, a complete

reappraisal

occurs

when

revaluation

accompanied by

reinspection

each parcel

property.

The starting

ratio

for the

Form

L-40

(which is carried

Line

-0

the

Form

L-4023)

calculated using standard study procedures

described

Chapter

the 1972 Assessor’s

Manual.

The ratio may

based on

assessment /sales ratio study or

appraisal study or

combination

the

two.

any

case, the assessments that are compared to the sales

the

appraisals are for a year(s) prior to the reappraisal.

Sometimes,

result

a reappraisal, the ratio

line

-05

the

Form

L-4023

is in excess

50%

especially when the unit

has

not been

reappraised for many years.

This

may be true because the reappraisal is

picking up many improvements made over the years which are not

identifiable at the time

the reappraisal

equalization

NEW

and are

therefore being treated

equalization PLUS ADJUSTMENTS.

this

situation the equalization department may hold the ratio at

50%

(rather than allowing it to exceed

50%)

PROVIDED THAT THE

EQUALIZATION DEPARTMENT

HAS

ANALYZED THE-

REAPPRAISAL AND

CONVINCED THAT THE REAPPRAISAL IS

RESULTING

ASSESSMENTS

THAT

ARE

50%

OF TRUE

CASH

VALUE.

In this case, true cash value is added on line

-07

of the

L-4023 and

explanation must be included.

example of

this

procedure is

shown

Form

L-4023

the page labeled

EXAMPLE

#2.

AssessmenVI'rue

Cash

Value Ratios Between

49.00%

and

51.00%

The STC continues to allow a classification of property within a township

city

be equaliid

assessed

if the

ratio

line

of the

Form

L-4023

lies between

49.00%

and

50.00%.

This

has

not changed.

The STC does

NOT

recommend that ratios between

50.01%

and

51.00%

be equalized

assessed because the Constitution does not allow the

assessment of property in excess of

50%.

The STC policy regarding ratios

over

50%

was discussed in paragraphs a),

and c) above.

The

STC

will use the Same procedures to determine whether to DEDUCT

true cash value

from

a classification of property in

given county on the

4th Monday in May

it presently uses

determine whether to ADD true

cash value to a classification. These procedures have not chang;d.

DNR

Land Assessed

the Ad Valorem Roll

Frequently State-owned land, which is controlled by the Department of Natural

Resources

(DNR)

and is assessed on the ad valorem roll, is separately analyzed on

the

Form

L-4018

a sub class within the agricultural class of property. The

remainder of the agricultural class is also separately analyzed.

Sometimes the DNR land is assigned a ratio

50%

on the

Form

L-4018 filed by

December

1 and later

is discovered that the assessments established by the

STC indicate a ratio

less than

50%.

The STC advises, in this situation, that the equalization department submit a

revised Form L-4018 which correctly sets the starting ratio for DNR Land at the

www.michigan.gov/treasury

3500 (Rev. 01-11)

RICK SNYDER

GOVERNOR

TATE OF

ICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

ANDY DILLON

STATE TREASURER

DATE:

June 9, 2011

TO:

Assessors and Equalization Directors

FROM:

State Tax Commission

SUBJECT:

The Michigan Supreme Court’s Decision in Klooster v City of Charlevoix

The State Tax Commission rescinds the Klooster v City of Charlevoix case memo dated March

21, 2011 and replaces it with this document.

Summary of the Court Case:

On March 10, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Klooster v City

of Charlevoix, Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 140423 (2011), regarding the interpretation

of MCL 211.27a(7)(h) and specifically which conveyances involving a joint tenancy are or are

not transfers of ownership.

James Klooster, the father, quit-claimed his property to himself and to his son, Nathan as joint

tenants with rights of survivorship, on August 11, 2004. James died on January 11, 2005,

leaving Nathan as the sole owner. On September 10, 2005, Nathan quit-claimed the property to

himself and his brother, Charles, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The assessor

uncapped the taxable value for the 2006 assessment year. The taxpayer appealed and the Tax

Tribunal ruled that the taxable value should have uncapped for the 2006 assessment year because

Nathan was not an “original owner,” or an already existing joint tenant before the August 11,

2004 joint tenancy was created.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Tribunal. The Court found the property should

not have uncapped because the death of a joint tenant does not constitute a transfer of ownership,

even if the joint tenant who dies was the sole original owner. The Court concluded that a

“conveyance” within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(7)(h) could not occur unless there was a

transfer of title by a written instrument.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme

Court found that the death of the only other joint tenant is a conveyance under the GPTA and

does not require a written instrument beyond the deed initially creating the joint tenancy. The

Court also determined that MCL 211.27a(7)(h) establishes requirements for an exception from

the definition of transfer of ownership in three separate and distinct types of conveyances:

termination of a joint tenancy, creation of a joint tenancy where the property was not previously

held in joint tenancy or the creation of a successive joint tenancy.

Klooster v City of Charlevoix

Page 2

June 9, 2011

Definitions:

Joint Tenancy: A joint tenancy is a form of concurrent ownership wherein each co-tenant owns

an undivided share of property and the surviving co-tenant has the right to the whole estate. On

the death of each joint tenant, the property belongs to the surviving joint tenants, until only one

individual is left.

Initial Joint Tenant: A person whose interest in the property was obtained because he or she was

one of the joint tenants who became a co-owner as a result of the “initial” joint tenancy and who

has continuously held an interest in the property as a co-owner in joint tenancy since the creation

of the “initial” joint tenancy.

Original Owner: A sole owner at the time of the last uncapping event; a joint owner at the time

of the last uncapping event; or, the spouse of the either a sole or joint owner of the property at

the time of the last uncapping event.

How to Determine if a Property Should Uncap:

Step 1: Identify the “Conveyance at Issue”

The first step is to determine if the “conveyance at issue” is the creation of an “initial” joint

tenancy, the creation of a “successive” joint tenancy or the “termination” of a joint tenancy.

The determination of whether a “conveyance at issue” is a transfer of ownership that uncaps the

taxable value of the property must be separately determined after identification of the

“conveyance at issue.” A conveyance will not constitute a transfer of ownership under the

General Property Tax Act if it is excluded under MCL 211.27a(7)(a) through (q).

Step 2: Determine if the Conveyance is the Creation of a Joint Tenancy

The creation of an “initial” joint tenancy occurs when a property held by a sole owner, by a

husband and wife holding as tenants by the entirety, or by tenants in common, is conveyed to

two or more persons as joint tenants.

If the person creating the joint tenancy held title to the interest being conveyed either as a sole

owner, as husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, or as tenants in common, then the creation

of a joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership, if, at least one of the persons conveying the

interest and

one of the persons receiving the interest was an “original owner.”

If you determine the conveyance meets the requirements defined above, STOP. No further

review is necessary and the conveyance is not a transfer of ownership. If the conveyance does

not meet both requirements defined above, move to Step 3 and/or Step 4.

This phrase “initial joint tenant” is not specifically used in the Supreme Court’s decision, but is helpful in

explaining the decision.

Klooster v City of Charlevoix

Page 3

June 9, 2011

Step 3: Determine if the Conveyance “Terminates” a Joint Tenancy

A joint tenancy terminates when there is no “successive” joint tenancy. The termination of joint

tenancy is a transfer of ownership if the resulting owner is not an “initial joint tenant.”

The termination of a joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership if both of the following are true:

• At least one of the joint tenants in the joint tenancy being terminated was an “original

owner” before the joint tenancy was initially created; and

• At least one of the joint tenants in the joint tenancy being terminated was an “initial joint

tenant” and has remained a joint tenant in successive joint tenancies.

Step 4: Determine if the “Conveyance at Issue” is the creation of a “Successive” Joint

Tenancy

A “successive” joint tenancy occurs when the conveyance is from one joint tenancy directly into

another joint tenancy. The creation of a “successive” joint tenancy may, or may not, be a

transfer of ownership.

The creation of a “successive” joint tenancy is not a transfer of ownership if both of the

following are true:

• At least one of the individuals in the “successive” joint tenancy was an “original owner”

and

• At least one of the joint tenants in the previous joint tenancy was an “initial joint tenant”

and has remained a joint tenant in successive joint tenancies.

Conclusion:

• If a joint tenancy is created by an "original owner" and if that "original owner" or their

spouse are also co-tenants in the joint tenancy, then the taxable value does not uncap.

• If a "successive" joint tenancy is created and an "original owner" or their spouse continue

as co-tenants in the "successive" joint tenancy, then the taxable value does not uncap.

• If a joint tenancy is terminated by the death of an "original owner" or by the "original

owner" making a conveyance, resulting in the ownership again being a sole ownership,

and if that sole owner is an "initial joint tenant," then the taxable value does not uncap.

• If a joint tenancy is terminated by conveyance and the sole owner after the termination is

an "initial joint tenant" then the taxable value does not uncap.

Several examples of each of the scenarios described above are listed below. The list should not

be considered all inclusive. The State Tax Commission advises assessors that taxpayers are

protected by a right of appeal, and therefore, when in doubt if a transfer of ownership should

result in an uncapping, an assessor should consider uncapping the property.

Klooster v City of Charlevoix

Page 4

June 9, 2011

Assessors are directed to MCL 211.27a(4) and Bulletin 9 of 2005 for the procedures to follow if

they determine the taxable value has mistakenly uncapped for a past assessment year. General

questions regarding transfers of ownership are addressed in the State Tax Commission Transfers

of Ownership Publication available on the Commission’s website under the What’s New heading

and the Publications link: www.michigan.gov/statetaxcommission

. Specific questions regarding

the Klooster Case and transfer of ownership can be directed to Heather Frick or Tim Schnelle at

517-335-3429.

Example # 1: Creation of a Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005, John

conveyed Blackacre to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of survivorship.

Did the taxable value uncap in 2006?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. Since there was a transfer of ownership which uncapped the taxable

value when John purchased the property in 2004, John was an “original owner” who continued to have an interest

after the creation of the joint tenancy. Michael became an “initial joint tenant” but he was not an “original owner.”

John’s status as an “original owner” who continued to be a co-tenant as part of the “initial” joint tenancy provides an

exception to uncapping. Michael’s status as an “initial joint tenant” is not a factor in the analysis.

Example # 2: Termination of a Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005, by quit

claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of

survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving Michael as the sole

surviving co-tenant. Did the taxable value uncap in 2006?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. Since John had previously held title as a sole owner, the joint tenancy he

created with Michael was an “initial” joint tenancy. Further, since there was a transfer of ownership which

uncapped the taxable value when John purchased the property in 2004, John was an “original owner.” John was an

“original owner” and an “initial joint tenant” when the joint tenancy was initially created in 2005. Further, John

remained a joint tenant from the creation of the “initial” joint tenancy until the joint tenancy was terminated by the

death of John. Since John was an “original owner” who continued to be a co-tenant after the creation of the “initial”

joint tenancy and since Michael became a joint tenant when the “initial” joint tenancy was created, and Michael’s

interest continued uninterrupted until the death of John, the taxable value did not uncap when John died.

Example # 3: Termination and a Non-Successive Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005, by quit

claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of

survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving Michael as the sole

surviving co-tenant. Michael immediately conveyed to himself and his brother, Peter, as joint

tenants, with rights of survivorship. Did the taxable value uncap in 2006?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership when Peter was added as a joint tenant. These facts are, in substance, those

in the Klooster case itself. Since John was an “original owner” who continuously held his interest as a co-tenant in

the joint tenancy since the joint tenancy was initially created and since Michael became an “initial joint tenant”

when the “initial” joint tenancy was created, the taxable value did not uncap when John died. However, when

Klooster v City of Charlevoix

Page 5

June 9, 2011

Michael, as the sole surviving co-tenant, created the joint tenancy with his brother, Peter, the creation of the joint

tenancy itself was an uncapping event for the reason that Michael was not an “original owner” at the time of the

creation of the “initial” joint tenancy with Peter. The reason that Michael was not an “original owner,” was that he

had not acquired his ownership interest in a transaction that resulted in an uncapping of the taxable value.

Example # 4: Successive Joint Tenancy

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005, by quit

claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of

survivorship. In 2006, John and Michael conveyed to themselves and Michael’s brother, Peter,

as an additional joint tenant, thereby expanding the joint tenancy by making John, Michael and

Peter, joint tenants, with rights of survivorship. Did the taxable value uncap in 2007?

No, there was not a transfer of ownership. John was an “original owner” arising from the fact that he obtained his

interest in the property by a conveyance that resulted in the uncapping of the taxable value. John and Michael

became “initial joint tenant” when the “initial” joint tenancy was created in 2005. Since John was an “original

owner” whose ownership interest has continued in the “successor” joint tenancy that added Peter, and since both

John and Michael were “initial joint tenants” whose interests as co-tenants was continuous from the time of the

“initial” joint tenancy, the taxable value did not uncap when Peter was added.

Example # 5: Life Estate

John and Mary purchased Blackacre, as tenants by the entireties, in 2004. In 2005 John and

Mary conveyed to themselves and Michael, using language which indicated that “all three (held

title) as joint tenants.” However, in addition to creating the joint tenancy among the three of

them, John and Mary also reserved a life estate for their joint lives. In 2006, both John and Mary

died. Did the taxable value uncap in 2007?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership. Although John and Mary were “original owners” in Blackacre, arising from

the fact that the taxable value uncapped in 2005, the year following their purchase, no “present” joint tenancy was

created by the 2005 conveyance. Instead, the instrument, by reservation, created a Life Estate during their joint

lives, with a remainder interest, in joint tenancy, among John, Mary and Michael. MCL 211.27a(7)(c) provides an

exception to uncapping for a conveyance of property subject to a retained Life Estate “until the expiration or

termination of the life estate…” Therefore, it is the State Tax Commission’s interpretation that a separate and

distinct uncapping event, the expiration or termination of a retained life estate, occurred prior to the joint tenancy

becoming a present interest and that this uncapping event took precedence over the exception to uncapping

contained in MCL 211.27a(7)(h). MCL 211.27a(6) provides that a “transfer of ownership means the conveyance of

title to or a present interest in property, including the beneficial use of the property, the value of which is

substantially equal to the value of the fee interest.” In this example, by the time the remainder interest becomes a

present interest, Michael was the sole owner of the property, not an “initial joint tenant.” It should also be noted that

upon the death of John and Mary, Michael becomes an “original owner.”

Klooster v City of Charlevoix

Page 6

June 9, 2011

Example # 6: Partial Interest

John, who was a single man at all relevant times, purchased Blackacre in 2004. In 2005, by quit

claim deed, John conveyed to himself and his son, Michael, as joint tenants, with rights of

survivorship. Several weeks later, but still in 2005, John died, leaving Michael as the sole

surviving co-tenant. Michael immediately conveyed a 1% interest in the property to his

daughter, Roberta, as a tenant in common. At the time, Roberta was a Michigan resident who

resided on the property, and the conveyance was made for the purpose of allowing her to claim

the Principal Residence Exemption. In 2007, Michael and Roberta conveyed to themselves, as

joint tenants, with rights of survivorship. Did the taxable value uncap in 2008?

Yes, there was a transfer of ownership as to an undivided 99% interest in the property. The original 1% conveyed to

Roberta in 2005 resulted (or should have resulted) in an uncapping of the undivided 1% interest which she received

as a tenant in common. This uncapping made Roberta an “original owner.” However, she was an “original owner”

of only an undivided 1% interest, as a tenant in common, with her father. When the joint tenancy interest was

created, the effect was that Michael, as the sole surviving co-tenant of the previous joint tenancy with his father,

John, could not rely on the fact that he was an “initial joint tenant” to exempt the conveyance of the undivided 99%

interest he still held, for the reason that when the previous joint tenancy terminated, he was not an original owner.

He was not an “original owner” for the reason that he had not acquired his remaining 99% undivided ownership

interest in a transaction that resulted in an uncapping of the taxable value.

Please note, however, if multiple grantors hold as tenants-in-common, each tenancy-in-common interest must be

analyzed separately, and it is possible for a partial uncapping to occur, for the reason that a person may be an

“original owner” as to one tenancy-in-common interest, but not an “original owner,” as to the remainder of the

tenancy-in-common interests in the property.

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

Transfer of Ownership Guidelines PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN (Michigan)

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Transfer of Ownership Guidelines PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN (Michigan) Form

Related forms

Fillable Transfer of Ownership Guidelines PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN (Michigan)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Transfer of Ownership Guidelines PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN (Michigan) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!