JOE AND BARBARA REISH,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 02-89517
	)
JAMES STRAHAN, ASSESSOR,	)
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Holding: The evidence on the record provides substantial and persuasive support for a market value of $924,000 for the subject real property as of January 1, 2001. The decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization is set aside and the true value in money for the subject real property for the 2002 assessment is set at $924,000, assessed value $295,680.

Complainants were represented by Attorney, Loren Friesen. Respondent was represented by County Counselor, William McCullah. The evidentiary hearing was waived and the case was submitted for decision on the basis of the prefiled exhibits and testimony. The case was decided by Hearing Officer Aimee L. Smashey.

The issue in this appeal is: What was the market value of the subject real property as of January 1, 2001?

The subject property in this appeal consists of a 5.07 acre parcel improved with a three level, 66-unit motel and associated manager=s quarters, swimming pool, parking lot, and utility building. The motel property is commonly known as the Ozark Valley Inn. The subject property is located at 2693 Shepard of the Hills Expressway, Branson, Missouri. The parcel identification number is 07-7.0-36-002-001-013.000.

Respondent appraised the subject property at a market value of $1,654,127 ($529,320, assessed) for the 2002 tax year. On July 19, 2002, the Taney County Board of Equalization changed the assessment to a market value of $1,598,812 ($511,620, assessed). Complainants appeal the assessment on the grounds of overvaluation and propose a market value of $800,000 - $924,000.

Complainants submitted the following evidence in support of their proposed assessment:

Exhibit A - The Appraisal of Ozark Valley Inn, J. Jeschke, Appraiser;

Exhibit B - Direct Testimony of Jerry Jeschke;

Exhibit C - Direct Testimony of Joe Reish.

Respondent did not submit any evidence.

1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization.

2. The subject property consists of a 5.07 acre parcel improved with a three level 66-unit motel building with lobby, laundry facilities, manager=s quarters, outdoor swimming pool with spa, breakfast/meeting room, guest laundry, and paved parking/driveway areas.

3. The motel improvements were constructed in 1993 and are in good condition for their age.

4. It is this Hearing Officer=s judgment that Complainants= appraisal provides a credible and persuasive indication of what buyers and sellers would rely on in negotiating a sales price for the subject real property. Accordingly, it is persuasive evidence of the market value of the subject real property as of January 1, 2001.

5. The subject real property has a market value of $924,000 ($14,000 per unit) as of January 1, 2001.

1. Real property is valued for assessment purposes once every two years. The property is valued as of January first of each odd-numbered year and the same value carries over for the assessment in the even-numbered year. Accordingly, when a taxpayer files an valuation appeal in an even-numbered year, it must prove the market value of the subject property as of January 1, of the previous odd-numbered year. Section 137.115.1, RSMo Supp. 2002.

2. Complainants, as the movants in the appeal, have the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence in support of their proposed value. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.

3. 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).

4. 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).

As referenced above, the question that must be answered from the evidence submitted is: What was the market value of the subject real property as of January 1, 2001? Market value is defined as A...[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.

The hearing officer sitting as trier of fact in this appeal has the responsibility to review the evidence presented in order to determine what is the best, most persuasive evidence of the market value of the subject property. Complainants put forward the appraisal report and testimony of a state certified general real estate appraiser. The appraisal contained applications of the cost, sales comparison, and the income capitalization approaches to value, each of which are recognized as accepted approaches to value in the appraisal industry and by our state=s courts. The application of the sales comparison approach using the unit of sales price per motel room was the approach that the appraiser ultimately placed the greatest reliance upon in reaching his opinion of a market value of $924,000 for the subject real property. This approach utilized the recent sales of nonfranchise motel properties with comparable locations, sizes, ages, and conditions. The sales appear from the analysis to be very comparable to the subject motel and, therefore, provide a strong indication of the likely sales price for the subject property. The appraiser=s adjustments to the comparable sales prices appear to be reasonable and support a conclusion of value of $1,060,000 for the subject motel (inclusive of the personal property which has an estimated value of $136,000). After deducting the value attributable to the personal property, Complainants= appraiser concluded a value of $924,000 for the real property under appeal. Respondent did not present any evidence. This Hearing Officer is persuaded that Complainants= proposed value is a credible and persuasive estimate of the market value of the subject property.

The decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization is set aside. The assessment on the subject real property for the 2002 tax year is hereby set at $295,680.

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 Taney 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 October 8, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer