Taxation: other; certain references in the real estate transfer tax act; make gender neutral. Amends sec. 5 of 1966 PA 134 (MCL 207.505). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25
House Bill 4620 amends Michigan’s Real Estate Transfer Tax Act, specifically the list of instruments and transfers that are exempt from the tax. The bill largely updates the language in section 5 to make it gender neutral and stylistically modern, while preserving the substance of the existing exemptions. It clarifies references such as “husband or wife” to “individual” and “spouse,” and makes similar wording changes throughout the exemption list.
The bill continues to exempt a wide range of transactions from the real estate transfer tax, including low-value transfers, certain out-of-state contracts involving Michigan land, constitutionally protected transfers, security instruments, leases, personal property interests, underground gas storage rights, government-related transfers, foreclosure-related deeds, boundary-line adjustments, title-correction deeds, land contracts, mineral rights transfers, and joint tenancies where one owner already held the property. It also retains the exemption for certain court-ordered transfers and transfers involving governmental entities or federally backed loans.
A key feature of the bill is that it is tie-barred to a separate constitutional amendment proposal, meaning it would not take effect unless Senate Joint Resolution ____ or House Joint Resolution F becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. This indicates the bill is intended to work in tandem with a broader constitutional change rather than operate independently.
The overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, with the bill presented as a technical and noncontroversial update rather than a major policy change. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition in the available materials. The bill’s caption specifically describes it as making certain references in the real estate transfer tax act gender neutral, suggesting the main purpose is modernization and clarification.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is procedural rather than substantive: the bill’s effectiveness depends on the related constitutional resolution passing. That tie-bar may matter to supporters and opponents of the broader constitutional package, but the text of HB 4620 itself does not appear to change tax policy or expand the tax base.
HB 4620 would amend section 5 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act (1966 PA 134, MCL 207.505) by revising the statutory list of exempt real-property transfer instruments. In practice, it would not materially alter which transactions are exempt, but it would update statutory wording to be gender neutral and more consistent in phrasing. The bill affects taxpayers, title companies, real estate professionals, lenders, local governments, and parties to exempt transfers by preserving existing exemptions for common transactions such as spousal conveyances, foreclosure-related deeds, land contracts, mineral rights transfers, and government-related transfers.
Because the bill is tie-barred to a constitutional amendment resolution, it would only take effect if the related resolution becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. As a result, the bill’s legal impact is contingent and limited to conforming the transfer tax statute to the broader constitutional change.
The available information suggests a generally neutral or favorable sentiment toward HB 4620. The bill is framed as a technical cleanup measure that modernizes language and makes references gender neutral without changing the underlying tax exemptions. No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no recorded public debate in the provided materials. The absence of controversy in the text and the narrow scope of the changes suggest it is likely viewed as administrative rather than ideological.
There is little substantive contention apparent in the bill text itself because it preserves the existing exemption structure and mainly updates terminology. The only notable issue is the tie-bar to Senate Joint Resolution ____ or House Joint Resolution F, which means the bill’s fate depends on a separate constitutional amendment. Any disagreement would likely center on that broader constitutional package rather than on HB 4620’s specific tax exemptions or gender-neutral wording changes. No committee testimony or votes are provided to indicate organized support or opposition.