House Bill 6003 would create a new annual surcharge on “deluxe second homes” in Michigan beginning with the 2027 tax year. A deluxe second home is defined as a non-owner-occupied residential property with a true cash value of at least $1 million. The surcharge is layered on top of existing taxes and is calculated on the amount of value above $1 million, with rates that increase as property value rises: 2% for homes valued from $1 million to under $2 million, 3% for $2 million to under $3 million, 4% for $3 million to under $4 million, and 5% for homes valued at $4 million or more.
The bill would add a new tax collection and administration framework under the Department of Treasury, including forms, rules, penalties, and deposit of all surcharge revenue into a newly created reimbursement fund. That fund would be used first to reimburse the state school aid fund for lost revenue, then municipalities for certain property-tax-related revenue losses, and then the state and local units for specified administrative and tax-credit-related costs. The bill would also interact with several existing property tax and income tax provisions by tying the surcharge to definitions in the General Property Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, and by referencing exemptions, credits, and online property tax tools already in state law.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a revenue-raising and reimbursement mechanism aimed at high-value second homes, suggesting a policy emphasis on taxing luxury or non-primary residences while offsetting other public revenue losses. The absence of voting history makes the overall legislative sentiment indeterminate from the supplied materials.
The likely points of contention are the new tax burden on owners of high-value vacation or investment properties, the definition of non-owner-occupied property, and the threshold and graduated rate structure starting at $1 million in value. Potential supporters would likely favor the bill as a way to raise revenue from luxury real estate and to backfill school aid and municipal losses, while opponents may argue it could discourage investment, affect seasonal housing markets, or create valuation and administration disputes. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s use of surcharge proceeds to offset revenue losses from other tax changes and administrative costs, which may be viewed as either fiscally prudent or as an indirect justification for a new tax.