Michigan House Bill HB4968

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/12/23
• Refer: 9/12/23
• Report Pass: 9/28/23

Caption

Taxation: specific tax; determination of eligible tax reverted property specific tax; modify. Amends sec. 5 of 2003 PA 260 (MCL 211.1025). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4966'23

Impact

The legislation is designed to streamline the taxation process for properties that have reverted to tax possession, which can especially affect municipalities and local governments by altering their revenue streams. The bill outlines that the specific tax must be assessed and collected similarly to other property taxes, ensuring consistency in payment schedules. Furthermore, it emphasizes the distribution of tax collections where half of the funds will be allocated to local governments and the other half to the authority responsible for the property under the land bank fast track act.

Summary

House Bill 4968 aims to amend the Tax Reverted Clean Title Act of 2003, specifically modifying how the eligible tax reverted property specific tax is levied. The bill establishes that every owner of eligible tax reverted property will incur a specific tax amount based on what would have been collected under the general property tax act and, where applicable, the land tax equity act. This means properties that qualify will see a tax levy that reflects their potential tax status had they not been tax reverted.

Enacting

The bill includes stipulations regarding its enactment, tying its effectiveness to the passage of related legislation (either Senate Bill No. or House Bill No. 4966). Should any parts of this act be deemed invalid, the remaining sections will still hold unless proven inoperable by a court, reinforcing its legislative robustness.

Contention

Despite the intended simplifications, there could be contention regarding the distribution of tax revenues, particularly how they affect local school districts. The bill stipulates that certain revenues which would have gone to local school districts will instead be redirected to the state treasury to fund the state school aid fund. This provision may face pushback from educational advocates concerned about potential funding impacts on local school operations. Additionally, the bill specifies consequences for non-payment, such as forfeiture of property, which raises concerns over the treatment of affected property owners.