Michigan House Bill HB4799

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 8/26/25
• Refer: 8/26/25
• Report Pass: 10/21/25

Caption

Property tax: payment and collection; effect of a postmark date when determining date property taxes are paid and other communications and notifications are provided; clarify. Amends sec. 44b of 1893 PA 206 (MCL 211.44b).

Summary

HB 4799 amends Michigan’s General Property Tax Act to clarify how the date of receipt is determined for property tax payments and related taxpayer communications. Under the bill, a U.S. Postal Service postmark or the postmark of another common carrier may be treated as the date of receipt for purposes of payments, notices, and other communications received under the act. The bill also states that a tax payment cannot be considered received earlier than seven calendar days before the date it is actually received. The bill applies to nondelinquent property taxes, assessments, and other amounts listed on a property tax statement, along with related penalties, interest, and fees. It does not apply to tax payments made before a sale under section 60 of the act. In practical terms, the measure is intended to provide a clearer rule for taxpayers and local tax administrators when mailed payments or notices are involved, reducing disputes over timeliness and receipt dates.

Impact

HB 4799 would amend section 44b of 1893 PA 206, the General Property Tax Act, by changing the treatment of postmarks from permissive language to mandatory language for determining receipt dates. This would affect how local tax officials, treasurers, and taxpayers calculate whether a property tax payment or related communication was timely received, and it would apply specifically to nondelinquent property tax obligations and associated charges. The bill would not alter delinquent tax collection procedures generally, but it would create a clearer statutory rule for mailed payments and notices under the property tax system.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, as it was reported with recommendation with substitute H-3 by a 9-1 vote. No committee transcript is available, but the narrow opposition indicates broad support with at least some concern or disagreement over the exact wording or policy effect. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a technical clarification rather than a major policy change.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the shift from postmark date as something that “may” be considered the date of receipt to language stating it “must” be considered the date of receipt. Supporters likely view this as a taxpayer-friendly clarification that reduces ambiguity and mailing disputes, while any opposition may stem from concerns about administrative flexibility, proof of mailing, or the effect on local tax collection timing. The seven-day rule limiting how early a mailed payment can be deemed received may also be relevant to administrators concerned about processing delays and cutoff dates.