|
No. 127422-127424
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
John D. Pirich |
Petitioner-Appellant, |
|
Jeffrey A. Hyman |
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Tax Tribunal) |
|
|
| City of Woodhaven and |
|
Dale T. McPherson |
| County of Wayne, |
|
Richard G. Stanley |
Respondents-Appellees. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Tax Tribunal) |
|
|
City of Sterling Heights, |
|
Robert Charles Davis |
Respondent-Appellee. |
|
Ralph Colasuonno |
| ------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
|
Petitioner-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Tax Tribunal) |
|
|
| Township of Bruce, |
|
Lawrence W. Dloski |
Respondent-Appellee. |
|
|
| ______________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioner-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Petitioner-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Respondent-Appellee Bruce Townships' Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellee City of Sterling Heights' Brief of Appeal>>
Respondents-Appellees City of Woodhaven and County of Wayne's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Retailers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
In each of these cases, Ford Motor Company filed statements of personal property for tax purposes that contained errors. For example, Ford’s statements of personal property listed some property that Ford no longer owned. The various tax assessors involved did not personally review the property or determine whether it should be listed, but used the personal property statements to determine the amount of tax. Ford claimed that there was a mutual mistake of fact and that the excess payments should be refunded. Ford argues that its mistake of fact was improperly listing personal property and that the assessor’s mistake of fact was relying on the improper listing. The Michigan Tax Tribunal disagreed, concluding that Ford’s “ ‘incorrect reporting’ of its personal property on its personal property statement is neither a clerical error nor mutual mistake of fact made by the assessing officer and taxpayer.” The Court of Appeals, in two unpublished and one published opinion, affirmed the Michigan Tax Tribunal, with one judge dissenting. Ford appeals.
Top of Page
|
