586 N.W.2d 232
Nos. 109449, 109525.Supreme Court of Michigan.
Decided June 16, 1998.
Order Entered June 16, 1998:
The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for clarification of its opinion.
The petitioner claimed an exemption for many items of personal property. See Exhibit B in respondent’s motion for rehearing at the Court of Appeals, and also the more complete listing in Attachment D to respondent’s Michigan Tax Tribunal brief and motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals opinion seems to say that all of that property is exempt — except those items that are “`machinery used to prepare the crop for market’ that does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the third sentence of MCL 211.9(j); MSA 7.9(j).”221 Mich. App. 663, 670 (1997). Thus, the Court of Appeals either: (1) assumed that all the property for which the petitioner. claimed an exemption is “machinery used to prepare the crop for market”; or (2) held that the statute unambiguously exempts those items that are not “machinery used to prepare the crop for market”.
On remand, the Court of Appeals should identify those items that it considers to be “machinery used to prepare the crop for market.” If that term does not encompass all the property, or if the record is not adequate to allow the Court of Appeals to classify some items, then the Court of
Page 888
Appeals also should clarify its holding regarding the tax-exempt status of any items that are not “machinery used to prepare the crop for market.” The Court of Appeals is to thereafter issue its clarified opinion and file a copy of that opinion with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction is retained. The application and the delayed application remain under consideration. Leave to file a brief amicus curiae is granted.
Reported below: 221 Mich. App. 663.