Adams, J.
On January 6, 1964, appellant’s property in Detroit, known as the Fisber-New Center Complex, was valued at $9,779,170 by the State tax commission. Detroit bad assessed the property at $13,241,460 for 1963. While appeal by the city was pending, we remanded to the commission for further bearing. In re Fisher-New Center Company (1965), 375 Mich 559. By stipulation of the parties, the new bearing also covered 1964 and 1965 assessments. The commission reaffirmed its order of Jan[349]*349uary 6, 1964, found the true cash value of the property to he $19,558,348, the general level of property assessments in Detroit to be at 50% of true cash value, and the proper assessment to he $9,779,170. The case is now here upon grant of petition to bypass the Court of Appeals.
I. Scope oe Review.
Basic to decision in this case is a determination of the extent and nature of judicial review of final board or agency decisions relating to valuation or allocation for spreading of property taxes.
Since 1899, section 1521 of the general property tax act (CL 1948, § 211.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.1 et seg.]) has provided for a hearing procedure before a State hoard or agency,2 or a member thereof, for review of assessment rolls to determine whether any property subject to taxation has been omitted or individual assessments have not been made in compliance with law. Throughout its existence, section 152 has provided that action by the board or agency, or a member, in accordance with the act shall be final. This Court has held that it was foreclosed from judicial review except where the action taken was challenged on the grounds of fraud, errors of law, or adoption of wrong principles. This doctrine has been described as the “finality rule.” Newport Mining Co. v. City of Ironwood (1915), 185 Mich 668, 685; Moran v. Grosse Pointe Township [350]*350(1947), 317 Mich 248; Kingsford Chemical Company v. City of Kingsford (1956), 347 Mich 91; Pavilion Apartments, Inc., v. State Tax Commission (1964), 373 Mich 601.
It is the contention of appellant, however, that because of the provisions of Const 1963, art 6, § 28, the scope of judicial review of an order of the State tax commission has been broadened.
Article 6 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution relates to the judicial branch. Its section 28 reads:
“All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. Findings of fact in workmen’s compensation proceedings shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud unless otherwise provided by law.
“In the absence of fraud, error of law or the adoption of wrong principles, no appeal may be taken to any court from any final agency provided for the administration of property tax laws from any decision relating to valuation or allocation(Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant contends article 6, § 28, incorporates as a constitutional requirement the law as it had been developed by prior decisions of this Court; that, by the Constitution, the courts are authorized to review actions of all agencies, including the State tax commission; that section 28 grants direct judicial review to determine as a minimum whether administrative findings are supported by competent, material and [351]*351substantial evidence on the whole record; that, in valuation cases, the scope of such review is expressly-limited to a determination of whether the agency decision is based on fraud, error of law, or the adoption of wrong principles; and that a valuation decision by the State tax commission which is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record is an error of law and an adoption of wrong principles. By this argument appellant seeks to avoid the limiting provisions of the second paragraph of article 6, § 28.
Valuations of property for tax purposes are first set by an assessor or a board of assessors acting for local governmental units. Such assessments are then reviewed by a local board of review where any taxpayer may appear to protest the assessor’s valuation. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the decision of the board of review, he may appeal to the State tax commission.
Decisions by the local assessor or the board of review have finality only for the year in question. Even a determination by the State tax commission has finality for a period of not to exceed three years. CL 1948, § 211.152, as last amended by PA 1964, No 275 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 7.210). The decision-making process, basically an annual one and subject to change from year to year, is quite unlike the usual procedure in judicial matters where, once a case has been tried, decided, and accorded appellate review, it becomes a final adjudication, Because of the repetition, year after year, of the decision-making process, and because of the need of units of government to be reasonably assured of their tax revenues, the finality rule evolved.
The delegates to the constitutional convention for the 1963 Michigan Constitution were aware of this [352]*352situation as is revealed by their debates.3 Consequently, when it was desired to spell out in the new Constitution rights of review of administrative decisions, the convention was careful to provide an exception to such rights in connection with appeals from any final agency provided for the administration of property tax laws from any decision relating to valuation or allocation. Appellant attempts to impose the minimum review requirements in the first paragraph of article 6, § 28, upon appeals permissible under the last paragraph. We do not so construe the section. The last paragraph was clearly [353]*353intended to provide a more limited review in property tax matters than is provided for in the first paragraph. Appeals under the last paragraph are restricted to a showing of fraud, error of law, or the adoption of wrong principles.
"VVe granted review here in order that the nature and extent of judicial review might be considered in the light of the provisions of the 1963 Michigan Constitution and because of taxpayer’s claims that the State tax commission committed errors of law and adopted wrong principles in arriving at its decision. In the light of our above holding, much of taxpayer’s argument loses effectiveness because predicated on an interpretation of article 6, § 28, which this Court does not accept. Taxpayer’s claims for upsetting the valuation assessments of its property, fixed by the State tax commission, will be considered for the restricted purpose of determining whether the commission committed errors of law or adopted wrong principles. No fraud is claimed by taxpayer.
II. The HeabiNg.
In Pavilion Apartments, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, supra, it was determined that a taxpayer is entitled to be advised as to studies or reports by the staff of the State tax commission upon which that commission might base its determination. The taxpayer must be afforded an opportunity to challenge the validity of such studies, reports or findings, and to cross-examine the persons preparing the same. We remanded this case to the commission for further hearing in the light of Pavilion. Such hearing was held. The commission, in its decision, states that it “made available every shred of data and evidence contained in its records to both taxpayer and taxing authority.” The adequacy of the hearing is now undisputed. However, it is claimed that, as a [354]*354result of the evidence produced at the hearing, the decision of the commission was erroneous: (1) because there is no evidence to support its decision, or (2) because the decision is against the great weight of the evidence and in disregard of the only competent evidence.
The hearing was opened by the taxpayer. Witness Louis Berry, president of Fisher-New Center Company, testified that the assessed properties were purchased on December 7, 1962, for $10,000,000. The factor used to determine the purchase price was return on investment.
William it. Luedders, a specialist in appraisals of nonresidential properties, testified that with certain adjustments in the sales price it finally amounted to $9,238,585. In his opinion, there are three standard approaches to value:
“Replacement value after allowances for depreciation and obsolescence which furnishes an upper limit of value. Comparable sales, and capitalization of income which may be based on the capitalization method disclosed — or capitalization levels disclosed by the comparable sales.”
Based upon a capitalization of income method, he arrived at a fair cash market value for 1963 of $9,800,000 and for 1965 of $10,000,000.
Elof Nordbeck, a member of the staff of the tax commission, was called for cross-examination by the taxpayer. Nordbeck was in charge of the staff that investigated assessments in Detroit and Wayne county for the year 1963 for the purpose of making recommendations for equalizing valuations. He testified that the studies for such a determination are a continual process and that the data from which the studies were made were part of his files. He stated that the normal level of assessments in Wayne [355]*355county for that year was 50% of true cash, value. He testified further that assessments in Detroit varied in percentage and relation to true cash value in a range from 38 to 52% with the bullí of residential real estate at an average of 43%.
The taxpayer also submitted to the commission certain exhibits and documentary evidence to support its claim that the general level of assessments was 42.7 %. Due to the fact that two of the tax commissioners would not be present for the balance of the hearing, the attorney for the taxpayer then made a closing statement in which it was claimed that the use by the city of a reproduction cost method of determining value was improper and should not have been used by the city assessors in determining fair market value; that the proper assessment level in Detroit was 42.7% and that, consequently, the assessed value of the property should be determined to be between $4,300,000 and $4,400,000.
In a statement made at the same time, the attorney for the city stated the capitalization of income approach is not used by the board of assessors to arrive at assessments because 95% of all industrial property and 85% of all residential property is owner-occupied. There is no income to judge what would be a proper assessment based on capitalization of income. The primary approach used by the city is reproduction cost less depreciation, consideration being given to sales and income as a test to measure the grant of obsolescence where warranted.
The hearing resumed the following day. Robert Case, city assessor for Dearborn Heights who had previously been a property appraiser for the tax commission, was cross-examined by the attorney for Detroit. He testified he had been an investigator doing field work in the development of appraisals of property and that he, with another appraiser for the corqmission, had done the field work in connec[356]*356tion with, the Fisher-New Center properties. The appraisal sheets, at the insistence of Tax Commissioner Barr who was conducting the hearing’, were made a part of the record. Case 'testified in great detail as to the procedures which were followed to determine the value of the buildings and the real estate. He was cross-examined by the attorneys for the city and the taxpayer. Values had been calculated both by projecting the income of the property and on a reproduction cost basis. Using the latter method, an allowance of 50% was given for obsolescence “to bring our appraisal down to the value that we arrived at from projecting the income of the property.” Case testified under cross-examination:
“Q. In fact your approach — you relied entirely on the income approach, did you not?
“A. I would say almost entirely.”
It is the taxpayer’s contention that, because Case stated he was not an expert on the capitalization of income method, the entire probative value of the appraisal by the staff of the commission was destroyed. The appraisal itself is a part of the record. Case, though unwilling to denominate himself as an expert in a particular phase of appraisal work, exhibited a familiarity with appraisal procedures and the use of appraisal manuals. Consequently, we do not conclude that the staff’s report to the commission is without any evidentiary value whatsoever.
John W. Libcke, a member of the board of assessors of the city of Detroit, testified as to the procedures followed by that board. There are 420,000 parcels of real estate in Detroit to be assessed and more than 65,000 individual personal property assessments to be made. Real property appraisals are made by a staff of 60 appraisers and presented to the board of assessors, pursuant to policy determinations and procedures outlined by the board, Thq [357]*357board of assessors established building cost schedules which they considered to reflect the true cash value of property when applied with other factors involved in the assessment process. Building cost schedules are tested by sales to determine the validity of the schedules. Libeke stated it would be proper to utilize the income approach in determining the true cash value of property but, basically, the city uses the reproduction cost method. He testified that the known cost of a particular building would have no relevancy under the reproduction cost method of assessment used by the city but that such a building would be assessed on the basis of average costs for a building of the type involved, such average costs being determined from the building cost schedules.
George Turner, an employee attached to the land division of the board of assessors, testified with regard to the city’s procedures for the valuation of real estate. He stated that in assessing the value of land he was concerned with more than the value of the one piece of property involved. He said assessors must always keep in mind how their valuation of a parcel relates to the next block and the next block thereafter, and so to the whole city. This is the assessor’s primary function. When asked for his opinion as to the average level of property assessments, real and personal, to cash value in 1963, 1964 or 1965, he replied:
“I would say in the downtown area the newer buildings would be assessed at close to 50%, the older buildings — there is so much obsolescence and if you went by the sales of these properties our assessments could be 100 % of the sale price in many cases more.”
Henry K. Thomas, head appraiser of the major building division for the Detroit board of assessors, [358]*358testified with, regard to the assessment of the Fisher-New Center properties. The normal procedure used by that board for appraising property would be to take the comparative replacement rate and depreciate for the age of the structure in conformity with its rules and procedures. A comparative replacement rate is used instead of a reproduction rate to remove excess cost for over-decoration and over-design. The next operation is an analysis for obsolescence. The basic approach utilized in determining the building assessment is on the comparative replacement cost, less allowances for depreciation, less obsolescence. The city also makes a study of comparative sales to determine obsolescence considerations. Thomas stated that the city does not base any assessments solely on an income approach or on a sales approach but, rather, does them on an appraisal of cost less depreciation. Upon cross-examination, he was asked:
“Q. Are you now satisfied to state that in your opinion you are not competent to make a capitalization of income approach of this property?
“A. Yes. * * *
“Q. You have testified that you did not seek to arrive at true cash value of this property, the Fisher-New Center Complex, isn’t that right? You have already testified to that?
“A. Yes.”
It is clear from the testimony of the city’s witnesses and exhibits that the policies, procedures, and method of assessment established by the Detroit board of assessors sought as its primary objective to attain uniformity within and between properties rather than true cash values.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Commissioner Barr raised the question as to what would constitute the file in this case. He said:
[359]*359“The complaint of the taxpayer must remain there, all our work sheets and onr appraisal data and reports of our staff must he considered a part of the file.”
In an exchange with the attorney for the city, Commissioner Barr said:
“If you are saying that we are not going to he permitted to use this material in determining these assessments, to make use of the material that we have accumulated through our staff, then we will have to meet again and lay it out for you because I am not going to agree on this record that we are going to be so restricted that we can’t make use of the knowledge that we have accumulated in our work.”
Finally, Commissioner Barr stated:
“Well, at any rate we have the new record, hut it is not limited.”
The decision and order of the State tax commission filed December 2, 1965, reads in part as follows :
“In this, and as in every other assessment appeal, the State tax commission is faced with (a) determining the true cash value of property and (b) the proportion of true cash value at which its assessment should be placed.
“The taxpayer contends in essence that its recent purchase of the properties for $10,000,000 establishes its true cash value; and that it should consequently be assessed at approximately $4,270,000 since the work data of county and State equalization indicates an assessment level of 42.7% of true cash value for the city of Detroit. # *
“The city of Detroit has not chosen to justify the assessment of $13,241,4604 but has instead urged the [360]*360figure of $12,548,010 as being the proper assessment figure for the properties which consist of 29 descriptions comprising the Fisher Building, the New Center Building, and surrounding parking locations. The city maintains that it has consistently assessed properties by consideration of its cost less depreciation and obsolescence, that it assesses all properties in such manner and that therefore the Fisher-New Center properties must necessarily be assessed their proper tax burden. The commission rejects such contention based upon its long experience as well as the constant judicial pronouncements of the Michigan Supreme Court. Such experience and judicial decisions establish that uniform approach to valuation does not always result in uniform assessment.
“Although the commission is aware of the purchase price of the properties in the amount of $10,000,000 it cannot conclude therefrom that the purchase price is representative of the properties true cash value. An isolated sale of property is not evidence of its true cash value especially where the property is singular in character and quality. * * *
“The commission is not impressed with the appraisal presented by the taxpayer to support a market value of $10,000,000. The actual income and expense figures for the years 1961 and 1962 were submitted to the commission and thoroughly analyzed by its staff. A reasonable capitalization factor applied thereto assigns an aggregate value of $19,558,-348 to the 29 items of property. Such valuation by an income approach is substantiated by a reproduction cost approach to the property.
“The taxpayer’s contention that 42.7% of true cash value constitutes the assessment level of all properties in the city of Detroit is based exclusively upon the work of Wayne county equalization upon which is superimposed State equalization. Acceptance of [361]*361such percentage would presuppose perfect intra-connty equalization which in fact is unattainable. State tax commission studies of real property indicate that real property in the city of Detroit was assessed in a significant range of 38-52% of its true cash value as of the tax days in question. Studies of personal property assessment levels indicate that personalty was assessed at approximately 56% of its true cash value. The assessment level of all property, real and personal, in the city of Detroit for the tax years in question has been determined to approximate one-half or 50% of its true cash value. Thus, the tax commission has determined all assessment appeals during the years in question by application of 50% to the true cash value of the property.
“It should be stressed that the taxpayer’s sole reliance upon a so-called ‘equalization factor’ of 42.7 % is misplaced. It presumes perfect intracounty equalization. This is not the fact in any county within the State. * * *
“The State tax commission finds that the 29 items of property contained in the appeal of Fisher-New Center Company had a true cash value as of December 31, 1962 of $19,558,348; that the proportion of true cash value at which all property, real and personal in the city of Detroit is assessed, is one-half or 50% of true cash value; and that therefore the proper assessment to be imposed upon the property amounts to $9,779,170.”
III. True Cash Value.
All methods used to determine true cash value involve the exercise of judgment or decision-making. While it may seem that a sale which has occurred definitely fixes market price so as almost indisputably to determine true cash value, this is not necessarily the case, particularly if the property is unique and if there have been few sales. The testimony in this case shows that a great many considerations [362]*362enter into the determination of sales price- — need of or ability to utilize the property, the calculation of potential income, actual income, age and physical condition, possible tax benefits or detriments, cost of money, and so on. Sales price, particularly a single sales price, is only one index of true cash value. Twenty-Two Charlotte, Inc., v. City of Detroit (1940), 294 Mich 275, 283; Moran v. Grosse Pointe Township, supra; Kingsford Chemical Company v. City of Kingsford, supra, at 102, 103. In Davidson v. City of Lansing (1959), 356 Mich 697, 700, Justice Kelly wrote for a unanimous Court:
“The sale price paid by appellants was an item to be considered by the assessor, but is not of and by itself controlling.”
If reproduction or replacement cost is used as the test, we are again met by uncertainties. No reconstruction or replacement of the property is contemplated. Consequently, pricing by competitive bids is lacking. Costs are often related to those of other structures thought to be within the same building-type classification. After a figure for cost has been selected, the next step is to determine the amount to be allowed for depreciation and for obsolescence, if any. Allowances for depreciation normally bear a relation to the remaining useful life of the building at the time of its construction. What the assigned useful life of a building should be may prove a debatable question. Two types of obsolescence may be considered by the assessor: functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence. The first covers loss of value due to inherent deficiencies within the property. The second is loss of value occasioned by outside forces. The measure of allowable obsolescence becomes a subjective determination. It can vary widely in the minds of individual assessors. All of these decisions, where the reproduction or replace[363]*363ment cost method is used, demand the exercise of judgment.
Finally, the capitalization of income method will produce different results depending upon such decisions as whether to use actual income or projected income, the amount and make-up of the capitalization rate, et cetera.
In this case the taxpayer’s expert, Mr. Luedders, used a capitalization rate of 9 % after property taxes hut before depreciation:
“Two reasons: one in the interest of conservatism and the other, there is a certain amount of pride of ownership in owning such a beautiful complex and such a prominent piece of property.”
A shift of 1% either way would produce considerable variation in value, as will be seen hereafter.
True cash value should be based upon one or more of the recognized methods for its determination. The method or methods to be used is a matter for decision at the assessing level and, if supported by the record, will not be subject to judicial review. Review will be limited to “fraud, error of law or the adoption of wrong principles.” In these assessment decisions, three levels of determination— (1) by the assessor, (2) by the board of review, and (3) by the State tax commission — must ordinarily suffice.
The commission’s staff report indicates that the current reproduction cost of the Fisher-New Center buildings before depreciation or obsolescence amounts to $63,160,864. Excluding ornate construction, the current replacement cost amounts to $51,-062,475. The staff estimated that after depreciation and obsolescence the value of the buildings and improvements is $13,870,342. The land, parking lots, et cetera, brings the total estimated value of the Fisher-New Center properties to $19,558,348.
[364]*364Tlie average net income of the Fisher-New Center properties before depreciation and property taxes for the years 1960, 1961, and 1962, was $1,176,-314. The commission’s appraiser estimated that the future net income should approximate $1,576,314. The appraisal presented on behalf of appellant shows the actual figures for 1963 and 1964 to have been $1,526,806 and $1,482,284, respectively, being net income before real estate taxes. The commission utilized a capitalization factor of 8.1%. Such capitalization factor, applied against the 1963 net income, would indicate a value in an amount approximating $18,850,000.
The appraisal offered on behalf of appellant also shows an estimated stabilized net income5 before taxes of $1,623,500. If one were to capitalize by the commission’s factor of 8.1% this stabilized net income before taxes, the capitalized true cash value of the Fisher-New Center properties would be $20,-043,210.
The gross income of the properties, according to appellant’s appraisal for 1963 and 1964, was $3,531,-989 and $3,635,379, respectively. The State tax commission’s staff report recites that:
“A gross income check for office buildings from Boeckh’s Manual6 indicates a gross income multiplier of 4 to 6.”
Exhibit “M”, offered by cross-appellant, recites:
“An analysis of sales of comparable property showed that such sales prices were at an average ratio of 5.6 times the gross income of these properties.”
Multiplication of the gross income shown by appellant for 1964, approximating $3,600,000, by a mul[365]*365tiplier of 5.6 would indicate a true cash value of $20,160,000. Projecting gross income of $3,500,000 for 1963 by a multiplier of 5.6 would produce a true cash value of $19,600,000.
Tbe determination of tbe State tax commission with regard to tbe true cash value of taxpayer’s property is supported by tbe record. Appellant has not demonstrated errors of law or tbe application of wrong principles.
IY. GENERAL Level oe Property Assessments.
Appellant in its brief states:
“In its decision, State tax commission applied a 50% ratio of fair market value as the general level of assessments in Detroit. At the bearing, the city of Detroit denied that its assessments bore any ratio to fair market values. the only testimony in tiis regard was that furnished by appellant. Appellant produced in evidence the 1963 State board of equalization report; Detroit’s 1963 auditor general’s report; the Wayne County supervisor’s report; the United States department of commerce study and the testimony of a member of State tax commission’s staff. All of these reports, having official status, disclosed that the general level of assessments in Detroit for both real and personal property was 42.7%. Without any evidence from the city of Detroit in opposition thereto, State tax commission nevertheless found as a fact that the general level of assessments in Detroit was 50%. Thus appellant contends, this finding, too, was contrary to and totally unsupported by the only lawful evidence before State tax commission which established beyond question that the general level of Detroit property assessments was 42.7%.”
Tbe State tax commission found as follows:
“State tax commission studies of real property indicate that real property in the city of Detroit was [366]*366assessed in the significant range of 38-52% of its true cash value as of the tax days in question. Studies of personal property assessment levels indicate that personalty was assessed at approximately 56% of its true cash value. The assessment level of all property, real and personal, in the city of Detroit for the tax years in question has been determined to approximate one-half or 50% of its true cash value. Thus, the tax commission has determined all assessment appeals during the years in question by application of 50% to the true cash value of the property.”
The studies of the commission upon which it based its decision are not contained in appellant’s appendix nor in the record certified to this Court. Appel-lee Michigan State tax commission took no action to identify these studies on the record at the hearing before it, nor did the commission print a separate appendix for the purpose of exhibiting the studies to this Court.
If we were convinced as to the nonexistence of the commission studies and if there were no evidence before us to support the 50% average assessment level, we would be obliged to hold that the commission committed an error of law since its decision would then be unsupported by any evidence.
The commission stated that it had “made available every shred of data and evidence contained in its records to both taxpayer and taxing authority.” Apparently, it is the contention of appellant that, because the commission did not see fit specifically to order its studies to be made a part of the record when the hearing took place, there is no evidence to support its decision. Appellant has misconstrued the nature of the hearing afforded it by order of this Court. The purpose of that hearing, as decided in Pavilion, was to give the taxpayer an opportunity to challenge the validity of any studies, reports, or [367]*367findings of the commission’s staff, and to cross-examine the persons preparing the same.
Commissioner Barr discussed the nature of the record at the close of the hearing and insisted that all files and records of the commission be a part of the record in this matter. It is evident from an examination of what took place at the hearing that the taxpayer was not misled as to the nature of the studies and that, as a matter of fact, the 50% level was assumed to be shown by such studies.
The staff report prepared by Robert Case was a part of the record and copies were in the hands of counsel during the hearing. The staff report, in commenting on the total projected average net income of the properties and the income capitalization rate, said “this assumes a 50% assessment level.” Additionally, in the concluding paragraph, under the heading “District Supervisors Comments”, this statement appears: “Our appraisal also assumes a 50% assessment level.”
Taxpayer’s counsel cross-examined Robert Case extensively concerning the contents of the report which he had prepared. In the course of that examination, the following occurred:
“Q. You use a figure of 2.6% for taxes in your report for real estate taxes. How is that 2.6 arrived at?
“A. As I recall the 2.6%7 is arrived at by relating it to the 50% assessment level here in the city of Detroit. The supervisor, Mr. Nordbeck, might be more qualified to go into detail about that than I am.
“Q. In other words, you took the prevailing tax rate of about $53 a thousand and cut it in half because of the 'prevailing assessment rate in the city of [368]*368Detroit at about 50% of fair market value, is that right? (Emphasis supplied.)
“A. As I recall, this is true.
“Mr. Honigman: That is all.”
Witness George Turner, when asked to give his opinion as to the average level of property assessments in Detroit, answered that in the downtown area the newer buildings were assessed at close to 50%.
Henry Thomas confirmed his understanding of the 50% level of assessments in Detroit when he explained his percentage of allowance for city taxes:
“The 2.6 was in a comparative analysis situation that the assessment may average 50% in the city of Detroit — the rate was $52 roughly—
“Q. (Interposing): Per thousand of assessed value.
“A. (Continuing): —and that in a combined way would be the taxes under a rate of $52 under a basis of a 50% assessment.
“Q. In other words, you recognize in evaluating the tax liability on the property that the tax will be assessed at $52 to $53 per thousand based on the assessed value which is approximately 50% of true cash value, is that right? (Emphasis supplied.)
“A. That’s correct.
“Mr. Honigman: That’s all.”
It is clear from the record before us that the taxpayer was not taken by surprise as to the assessment level which the tax commission might find to be in effect in Detroit. Instead of attempting to impeach the 50% level assumed in the commission staff report and as indicated by these witnesses, the taxpayer elected to offer competing evidence of a lower assessment level. If the commission elected to accept such competing evidence, it might do so. However, there being some evidence to support the determina[369]*369tion of the commission, and the valuation of the taxpayer’s property having been reduced to 50% in accordance with such determination, the taxpayer is not in a position to complain.
The better practice upon this appeal would have been to include the studies of the commission as a part of the record for consideration by this Court. If, because of their bulk, this was not feasible, the pertinent portions could be extracted and certified or their contents covered by stipulation. Initially, this was the responsibility of the appellant. the appellant having failed to make the studies a portion of the record, the commission cannot be excused for having neglected to do so.
Y. ITNIform Mode of AssessmeNt.
There remains to be determined the contention of Detroit upon its cross-appeal that the use of a uniform mode for assessment of all properties within the city was correct and that the commission erred in failing to affirm the city’s determination of valuation by such method. We agree with the tax commission that a uniform approach to valuation does not always result in uniform assessment. See In re Appeal of General Motors Corporation (1965), 376 Mich 373, 378, footnote 1. While uniform approach may be desirable, it is not the ultimate goal of valuation. the ultimate goal is uniform true cash values. They are not necessarily achieved by a single uniform approach. As we have pointed out, reproduction or replacement cost less depreciation and obsolescence is subject to many variables. Even a slight variation in the percentage of depreciation or of obsolescence may produce a considerable difference in valuation. the percentage to be used is a matter of judgment. Consequently, there is no assurance that the use of a single uniform mode will achieve a uniform assess[370]*370ment. Its use is not forbidden but such use should not foreclose other methods and approaches, depending upon the nature of the particular property, to achieve uniform assessment. With all approaches available for use and comparison of results, valuations of property for assessment purposes are more likely to reflect true cash values than will be the case if only a single mode is used.
AddeNdum : There are many varieties of judicial review. Generally review has been tailored to what courts, legislatures, and constitutional conventions considered to be requisite to due process and the realities of particular situations. For instance, judicial review in workmen’s compensation matters is so limited that findings of fact, in the absence of fraud, are conclusive. See article 6, § 28, Const 1963; CL 1948, § 413.12 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.186). In contrast to this, review of chancery matters is de novo, even in this Court.
I have set forth the reasons I construe the constitutional language to mean an admittedly limited judicial review of property tax assessments — a special kind of administrative proceeding that goes on year after year and that, statewide, involves hundreds of thousands of valuations — 420,000 parcels of real estate and 65,000 personal property assessments in Detroit alone. The law was well established in this field before the 1961 Constitutional Convention. From the constitutional debates, it is clear the 1963 Constitution intends no departure from the previous law.
Justice Soueis’ opinion and mine serve to illustrate the practical difficulties involved if courts were to consider the weight of the evidence in these tax matters. In these opinions, there has been a review of the evidence in this single case. If such review were to be allowed as a matter of right, the finality which [371]*371is now largely reposed in the Michigan State tax commission would pass to the courts. Since the importance of assured revenue for the operation of State and local government was well understood, I do not believe the people, in adopting the 1963 Constitution, intended a kind of review that would defer finality for years as litigation progressed through the courts.
I do not disagree with Justice Soubis that where a hearing has been demanded the commission or the commission’s staff has the procedural responsibility of presenting its case on the record for scrutiny and testing by the taxpayer. This issue of adequate presentation was never properly resolved at the hearing in this case — the studies, reports, and other data as to level of assessments never were fully identified and ferretted out of the commission’s files — either by the taxpayer or the commission. The commission insisted in a vague fashion that they were a part of the record. Neither the taxpayer nor the city of Detroit insisted upon specification of the same, as they had a right to do. "While suggested techniques for coping with this problem have been stated in this opinion, whatever techniques may he necessary should he developed in future tax cases.
Affirmed. No costs, neither party having provided the Court with a satisfactory record.
Kelly, Black:, T. M. KavaNagh, and BreNNAN, JJ., concurred with Adams, J.