Written by Forrest Wall, CAE, Staff Vice President and Industry Relations
AAM Seeking Change To Interest Rate For Property Tax Refunds
Many members have expressed frustration over the backlog of property tax appeals before the Michigan Tax Tribunal. While there are a number of issues contributing to the glacial pace of appeal resolution, one glaring problem is the inequity of interest rates applied to refunds versus delinquencies. Currently, late property tax payments can incur interest charges as high as 18 percent, as opposed to the interest paid to taxpayers for overpayments as determined through a Tax Tribunal appeal of around 1 percent. Clearly, this is bad public policy on a number of levels. First, strictly from a fairness perspective, the interest rate taxpayers are charged for underpayments and what they receive for overpayments should be the same. Second, the extremely low interest rate paid on refunds is an incentive to governmental units to delay case resolution, thus playing a role in the Tax Tribunal’s backlog. Finally, this rate disparity could actually incentivize excessive valuations. One solution to address this is to amend the Tax Tribunal Act so that the interest rate is the same for both underpayments and overpayments. AAM is currently partnering with the Michigan Chapter of the International Council of Shopping Centers on just such an effort, with the intent of introducing legislation this fall. Successful enactment of this legislation would provide fairness while helping to speed the resolution of appeals. Please watch your e-mail for “Calls to Action” as this effort progresses.
Landlords Have Duty To Notify Police Of Criminal Activity
A recent Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Bailey v. Schaff (COA Docket No. 295801) says apartment owners/managers have a duty to contact the police if they or their agents directly observe or hear of criminal acts in progress that pose a risk of imminent harm to tenants or guests lawfully permitted on the premises. In this case, a man who was shot at a party in an apartment complex sued the apartment owner, manager and security firm for negligence when security guards failed to act after being notified that a man was waving a gun and threatening guests. The Circuit Court had ruled that the premises possessor does not have a duty to respond to criminal acts. The Appeals Court, in its reversal of the lower court, emphasized that public safety is the business of government, so the only duty the apartment owner or manager has is to notify the police.