JEROME JESCHKE,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 02-89507
	)
JAMES STRAHAN, ASSESSOR,	)
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Holding: Complainant failed to prove the inappropriateness of the subject assessment. The assessment as determined by the Taney County Board of Equalization is affirmed.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals the 2002 assessment on his residential property at 439 Loganberry Road, Branson, Missouri, challenging the valuation on the grounds that the improvements were not complete as of January 1, 2002. The parcel number for the subject property is 17-3.0-07-003-001-014.000. Complainant maintains in his Complaint for Review of Assessment that the appropriate market value for the subject property for the 2002 tax date was $25,000.

The decision letter of the Taney County Board of Equalization reflects that the subject property was originally assessed at $46,920 which, when divided by the residential assessment level of 19%, indicates an original value of $246,950, rounded. Upon review, the Board changed the value to $191,476 for a corresponding residential assessment of $36,380.

An evidentiary hearing was held on October 24, 2002, before the Tax Commission Hearing Officer, Aimee Smashey, at the Taney County Annex Building in Forsyth, Missouri. Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Respondent, James Strahan, appeared in his official capacity as Assessor for Taney County.

Complainant's Evidence

Complainant, Mr. Jerome Jeschke, testified at hearing that the subject residence was not completed or occupied until after January 1, of 2002, and argued that according to Section 137.082, RSMo, such property cannot be assessed until the first day of January of the second year following the year in which the construction was complete -- January 1, 2003. In support of his argument, Mr. Jeschke offered a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy from the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Branson, dated January 11, 2002 (Complainant's Exhibit A), and copies of two telephone bills reflecting January 2nd and 3rd as the dates that service was transferred (Complainant's Exhibits B and C).

Respondent's Evidence

Mr. Strahan testified that Taney County has not adopted the assessment upon occupancy provisions of Section 137.082, RSMo. He further testified that his assessment staff adds new construction as they perform field reviews and the construction appears to be nearing completion. He offered as an exhibit two photographs of the subject property taken by his staff when they reviewed the property as it was under construction in October of 2001. He indicated that at the phase the subject construction was at when his staff viewed the construction in October of 2001, the subject improvements and all similar-phase construction would be picked-up and added to the assessment rolls. Tr. 11 (16 - 17).

ISSUE

Is the subject property, inclusive of new residential construction that was occupied around January 11, 2002, subject to assessment for the 2002 tax year?

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The subject residence appears to be nearing completion in October, 2001 when the Taney County assessment staff reviewed and photographed the property. Respondent's Exhibit 1. 3. Complainant's phone bills indicate new telephone line connections on January 2nd and 3rd of 2002. Complainant's Exhibits B and C.

4. Complainant received an occupancy permit on January 11, 2002. Complainant's Exhibit A.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Complainant has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence in support of his position that the subject property is not subject to assessment until January 1, 2003, based upon it being new residential construction not occupied until January 2, 2002 or later. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897. 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). 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).

Missouri operates on a two-year assessment cycle. The value of the property in the odd-numbered year shall remain as the value for the even-numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property during the odd-numbered year. Section 137.115, RSMo; Hughes v. Ordway, STC Appeal No. 01-52002 (November 29, 2001). The assessor is mandated by law to assess all real property which includes improvements, whether or not they were complete or occupied. Moser v. Sutherland, STC Appeal No. 98-91000 (June 14, 1999) ("The assessor must value what is in place. Even though not totally completed, the building under construction on the subject land added value to the real property.").

Section 137.082, RSMo, provides an exception to the standard two-year assessment cycle procedure for those counties that adopt its provisions of assessment upon occupancy. Section 137.082.8, RSMo. Counties whose governing bodies elect to adopt the provisions of Section 137.082.1 - .7, RSMo, have the authority (1) to add residential property which is newly constructed and occupied to the tax rolls on the first day of the month following the date of occupancy, and (2) to add residential property which is newly constructed and has not yet been occupied to the tax rolls upon occupancy or the first of January in the year following the year of completion of the construction, whichever is earlier.

Complainant failed to cite authority from the Taney County Commission that makes Taney County an assessment upon occupancy county under Section 137.082, RSMo. If Taney County had adopted such provisions, under the facts established by Complainant showing occupancy by January 11, 2002, the subject residence would have been assessable as of the first of February of 2002. Complainant indicated that if consideration of the incomplete improvements was appropriate for the 2002 assessment, he does not dispute the value assigned to the subject property by the Board. Tr. 9 - 10.

It is this Hearing Officer's judgment that Complainant failed to prove the inappropriateness of the assessment on the subject property. Accordingly, the assessment as determined by the Taney County Board of Equalization is affirmed.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Taney County Board of Equalization for the 2002 tax year is hereby affirmed.

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 March 20, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer