BERNARD & LUANN HESHION,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-30258
	)
MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY,	)
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT,	)
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

Complainant, Luann Heshion, has failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence demonstrating that her property would sell for no more than $112,000 on January 1, 2003. The value of $132,700, as determined by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.

ISSUE

The issue in this the true value in money of the subject property on January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004.

Complainant, Luann Heshion, appeals the assessment of her residential parcel on the ground of overvaluation. Said parcel was originally valued by the Assessor=s office at $151,600. The Board of Equalization reduced value to $132,700.

On April 22, 2004, an evidentiary hearing was held before the Tax Commission hearing officer, Luann Johnson, at the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by Counsel, William Snyder.

At hearing, Complainant asserted a value of $112,000. Respondent asserted a value of $151,300.

Matthew Woods, a state certified appraiser, testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Woods testified that he had found three sales of comparable condo units which indicated a value for the subject property of $112,000. The comparable condo units were similar in size to the subject but were older and were located in a different development in a slightly different part of town. No paired sales analysis was prepared to account for market reaction to the difference in location or amenities.

Dwight Witherspoon, a state certified appraiser, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Witherspoon testified that he had found three sales of comparable condo units which indicated a value for the subject property of $151,600. The comparable condo units were located in the same building as the subject but were on more desirable floors, were larger and were older sales.

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

2. The subject property is a 802 square foot, one bedroom, one bath condo which is 27 years old and is located on the 9^th floor of San Francisco Tower, 2510 Grand, Kansas City, Missouri. Other amenities include a garage and a balcony. San Francisco Tower is part of the Crown Center complex, an exclusive shopping center and hotel complex. The property is further identified as parcel number 29-534-10-05-00-0-000.

3. A condominium development is a unique neighborhood. Each development has amenities and restrictions particular to itself. Comparable sales from the subject development, if available, are the best indicators of value for the subject property.

4. Condo sales in the Kansas City area are strong, but there have been no sales of units similar in size to the subject unit, in the subject development, in the last few years.

5. Complainant=s appraisal is not a reliable indicator of value for the subject property because Complainant=s appraiser used sales from a different development which cannot be adequately adjusted to reflect the differences in amenities and desirability without a paired sales analysis. Complainant=s appraiser did not present a paired sales analysis.

6. Respondent=s appraisal is not a reliable indicator of value for the subject property because, although the sales came from the same development, they require significant adjustments because they are substantially larger than the subject property and have better views.

7. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2003, was $132,700 (assessed value $25,210), as determined by the Board of Equalization.

8. No evidence was presented which tended to demonstrate that any new construction and property improvements occurred to the property between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004. Thus, the market value determined for tax year 2003 will remain the same for tax year 2004.

There is a presumption in favor of the Board of Equalization. Therefore, in order to prevail Complainant must demonstrate, by substantial and persuasive evidence, that the market value of her residential property was $112,000 on January 1, 2003.

Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, i.e., evidence favoring facts which are such that reasonable men may differ as to whether it established them, and from which the Commission can reasonably decide an appeal on the factual issues. 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).

Section 137.115, RSMo 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 purchased by one who is desiring 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).

DISCUSSION

The burden is upon Complainant to demonstrate, by substantial and persuasive evidence, that the value determined by the Board of Equalization does not represent the true value in money for her property on the tax day. Complainant has failed to meet that burden of proof. As Complainant pointed out in her opening statement, there are no recent sales of similarly sized condos, on a similar floor. Through no fault of their own, both appraisers were required to use sales that had only limited use in determining value for Complainant=s property. In such an instance, where neither party has presented substantial and persuasive evidence and we are otherwise without sufficient reliable evidence to test the value presented by either party, we defer to the Board of Equalization.

ORDER

The assessed value determined by the Board of Equalization, is 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. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.

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 Jackson 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 May 11, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer