Skip to main content

Contact Information:
Edward S. Kisscorni, CPA
290 Suncrest Court, SW
Grandville, MI 49418

Office: 616/233-0667
Cell: 616/443-6730
Fax: 616/233-0667

Blog: www.EdKisscorni.com/Blog1
Email: Ed@EdKisscorni.com
 



 



 

 Blog 
Tuesday, March 15 2011

Manufacturer's Equipment Properly Valued by Personal Property Appraiser

In Spartech Polycom, Inc. v. City of St. Clair, Michigan Court of Appeals, No. 295334, March 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Michigan Tax Tribunal properly held that a manufacturer's personal property should be valued for property tax purposes at the lower true cash value that was proposed by the manufacturer's personal property appraiser, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held. The manufacturer's equipment was appraised using a market comparison approach that compared the appraised property to the prices paid for similar items in the current market. The appraiser generally relied on large websites like eBay or a conglomeration of market sellers. When using eBay, the appraiser looked at the Buy It Now price, rather than the auction price.

The city argued on appeal that the method used by the appraiser did not meet the statutory requirements in determining true cash value. Under the applicable statutory provision, auction prices could only be used to determine the true cash value if auction sales had become a common method of acquisition for that type of property in Michigan. The city also asserted that there was no evidence that the manufacturer or any other company ever bought any machinery through eBay and that the appraiser's valuation failed to account for freight, taxes, and installation on the value of the property.

The Michigan Court of Appeals noted that the appraiser identified the Buy It Now price as the price for which the seller would be willing to immediately part with the item. The Buy It Now price was a fixed price set by the seller, not a price offered by prospective buyers participating in an auction. As for the city's assertion that a valuation based on the market approach must be supported by evidence of verified sales, the city failed to identify any statute, case law, or administrative rule or regulation that required such a showing.

The court also previously held that installation, freight, and sales tax were appropriately included in true cash value unless there was evidence that these costs were not part of the market. In this case, the tribunal specifically found evidence that freight, installation, and taxes were not included in the market price of the goods at issue, and under those conditions, the tribunal was permitted to exclude the additional charges.

Posted by: Ed kisscorni AT 10:42 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Comments:

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

 

Design Your Own Website, Today!
iBuilt Design Software
Give it a try for Free