JEFF HERROLD,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number  00-79500
	)
CAROLYN PAGE, ASSESSOR,	)
POLK COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Holding: The evidence on the record supports an assessment of $2,160. The assessment is modified accordingly.

SUMMARY

The subject property in this appeal is a 1990 Ford F-250 4-by-4 truck. Respondent originally appraised the truck at a market value of $6,840 for an assessed value of $2,280. Complainant proposes a market value of $3,500. Respondent presented evidence in support of her original valuation allowing for a high mileage adjustment which warrants a minor reduction in the assessment.

Complainant's Evidence

Complainant, Mr. Jeff Herrold, offered an exhibit and the testimony of his father Mr. Ronald Herrold in support of his proposed market value of $3,500. Mr. Ronald Herrold testified that he and his son Jeff worked for four months to sell the subject truck in a trade to a dealer. He testified that "...whenever we went in they said to us if it's 10 years old and if you"ve got $130,000 miles on it we don't want it at all. The only thing they wanted to do is give you $3,500 and we're going to wholesale it just to the wholesaler thing because we can't afford to keep it on our lot" (Tr. 3). Ultimately, they were offered $4,000 in trade on a $21,000 truck by the Jim Rush dealership and $5,000 in trade on a $12,900 vehicle. In their efforts to sell the subject truck, they listed it for sale in the paper on three separate occasions, but did not receive any offers of purchase.

Respondent's Evidence

Carolyn Page, Assessor, offered testimony and exhibits in support of her assessment. Ms. Page testified that her office has been in the process of updating all personal property assessments to a market value standard. Reliance on a dated personal property valuation manual had caused personal property assessments to lag behind market values. Ms. Page had information published in the newspaper indicating that the updating would take place over several assessment years (Tr. 10). Ms. Page further testified that she and her staff rely on the information reported on personal property lists to determine personal property assessments. They pull the written description off of the list and reference new state vehicle valuation book and use the most applicable value from the book for the assessed value. Ms. Page indicated that if she had been provided with the mileage on the subject truck when the personal property list was returned, she would have made a $120 adjustment for high mileage on the basis of a chart in the valuation guide which would have indicated an assessment of $2,160.

ISSUES

The material issue in this appeal is: What was the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2000?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. The statutes do not require notice of increase on the assessments of personal property. The underlying assessment in this appeal represents an increase from the 1999 assessment on the subject property. Upon receipt of the tax bill reflecting the increase, Complainant acted promptly to contest the assessment by initiating a complaint with the State Tax Commission. On due process grounds, the Commission takes jurisdiction to hear the Complaint concerning this assessment.

2. Complainant purchased the subject truck in 1996 for $7,200 from a dealer in Springfield.

3. Complainant advertised the truck for sale in the local paper for three weeks and received no offers.

4. Complainant received quotes from two local dealers at $4,000 and $5,000 for what they would allow in trade on the subject truck.

5. The amount that a car dealer will allow in trade on a vehicle is not representative of the market value of the vehicle, rather the price at which the dealer will sell that vehicle at retail in the open market is a reflection of its market value. Property is assessed based upon its market value.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Complainant has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that his proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2000, in order to have that value accepted. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.

2. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

3. Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

DECISION

The question that must be answered from the evidence submitted is: What was the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2000? "Market value" is defined as:

...[t]he most probable price which a property would bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;

3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.

Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 163, August 22, 1990, pages 34228 and 34229; also quoted in the Definitions section of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 1996 ed.

Accordingly, the best evidence would be open market sales activity of the subject vehicle or comparable vehicles. Complainant made an attempt for at least three weeks to expose the subject truck to the open market for sale but was unable to negotiate a sale during this time. Complainant's evidence establishes a trade-in value of $5,000, which while not a market value, gives indication that the market value should be higher than the trade-in value. On the whole, Complainant's evidence fails to establish a market value of $3,500, as proposed, and fails to rebut the assessor's appraised value of $6,840. Ms. Page acknowledged in her testimony that if she had known the exact mileage on the vehicle she would have made a high mileage adjustment which would have reduced the appraised value from $6,840 to $6,480, which reduces the assessment from $2,280 to $2,160. This Hearing Officer concludes that the assessment should be modified accordingly.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property for the 2000 tax year is affirmed at $2,160.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.

If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Polk County as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in this appeal. If any protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED June 5, 2001.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer

OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION

On June 5, 2001, Hearing Officer Aimee L. Smashey entered her Decision and Order (Decision) reducing the assessment by the Respondent from $2,280 to $2,160.

Complainant timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a sufficient foundation to support the Hearing Officer's Decision. The Commission finds no basis to support a conclusion that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused her discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.470 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Order.

SO ORDERED July 10, 2001.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Sam D. Leake, Chairman

Bruce E. Davis, Commissioner

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner