RICHARD A. & SHEILA BUCKLES, ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) Appeal Number 00-10123 ) MAURICE M. GOGARTY, ASSESSOR, ) ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2000 $312,630, assessed value of $59,400.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
Case heard and decided by Chief Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUES
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2000.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $312,630 (assessed value of $59,400, as residential property). A hearing was conducted on March 6, 2001, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant's Evidence
Complainant testified in his own behalf. His point of contention had to do with the fact that his taxes had increased from $2,672 in 1998 to $4,028 in 1999 and that other homes in his neighborhood were not increased in a similar manner. Complainant testified that he believed that the value of $312,630 placed on the property by the Assessor was a reasonable market value.
Respondent's Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the appraisal report of Ms. Kathy A. Pusateri, state certified residential real estate appraiser. The appraiser arrived at a value of $315,000 for the subject. The appraisal report was offered to sustain the value determined by the assessor and sustained by the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Complainant did not challenge the valuation of the subject property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo. The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Section 138.431.4, RSMo.
Standard for Valuation
Section 137.115, RSMo, 1994, requires that property be assessed based upon its true value in money which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and bought by one who is willing or desirous to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children's Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).
Discrimination
In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 1999. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Mo. 1959); and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction. Koplar, supra, at 695.
Complainants must first establish the market value of their property in order to determine the percentage of true value at which it is being assessed. Next, they must establish the true value of the other properties generally which they claim are assessed at a lower percentage of true value. Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination. Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). Then they must compare the ratio of assessed value to true value for both their property and the comparable properties to establish that their property is being assessed at a higher percentage of value. This difference in ratios must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. 1958).
DECISION
Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove:
1. The level of assessment for the subject property in 1999. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor's office.
2. The average level of assessment for residential property in St. Louis County in 1999. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in St. Louis County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property the assessor's office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.
3. That the disparity between (1) and (2) is grossly excessive. The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all residential property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in St. Louis County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986).
Complainants' discrimination claim fails because they failed to establish that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within St. Louis County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property. Complainants' claim of discrimination is based upon an increase in taxes on the subject property from 1998 to 1999 and that similar increases did not occur relative to other properties in Complainant's neighborhood. This fails to establish a plan of discrimination to assess the subject property at an assessment ratio greater than that for residential property in general in St. Louis County. A few instances of undervaluation or disparity in level of taxes is not sufficient to establish discrimination.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2000 is set at $59,400.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo 1994.
If an application for review of this 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 St. Louis 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 or all 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 March 14, 2001.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Chief Hearing Officer