JOHN AND HARRIOTT JAMESON TRUST,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-46501
	)
RONALD CRAIGHEAD, ASSESSOR,	)
CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The evidence submitted provides competent and persuasive support for a market valuation of $300,000 for the subject property for the 2003 tax year. Accordingly, the assessment is modified to $96,000.

The issue in this appeal is: What was the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2003?

The subject property in this appeal consists of a 3.9 acre parcel improved with a commercial building, the size of which is not specified in this record. The subject parcel is identified by parcel locator number 13-04.0-20.0-30-001-001.003. The parcel is located at 1220 S. Highway 54, Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri. The original appraised valuation for the subject property for the 2003 tax assessment is not clearly established in the record. Complainant received a Notice of Change in Assessed Valuation of Real Property dated July 17, 2003. The notice indicated that the Board of Equalization had made a reduction to the valuation on the grounds that the former tenant, Walmart, had moved to a new location. The indicated appraised value as a result of that reduction was $539,890 ($172,770, assessed). Complainant appeals the assessment on the grounds of overvaluation and proposes a market value of $300,000. The parties waived their right to an evidentiary hearing and effectively consented to submit the case on the exhibit filed.

Complainant submitted the 2-paged Settlement Statement from the December 6, 2003, sale of the subject property.

Respondent did not offer any evidence.

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

2. Complainant sold the subject property to the City of Fulton on December 6, 2003 for a price of $300,000.

3. The Settlement Statement, Complainant=s Exhibit A, reflects that Complainant was represented by a realtor in the sales transaction.

4. The evidence concerning the subject sale was not refuted or rebutted.

5. The evidence concerning the subject sale is competent and persuasive in support of a market value of $300,000 for the subject property on the tax date.

1. Complainant, as movant in the appeal, has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that its proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2003, in order to have that value accepted. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.

2. ASubstantial@ 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. APersuasive@ 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).

4. There is a legal presumption that the price of land sold A...was in fact fixed freely and not under compulsion, and the burden of coming forward with evidence showing that a particular sale was not voluntary shifts to the opposite party.@ Board of Public Buildings v. GMT Corp., 580 S.W.2d 519, 523-524 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dockery, 340 S.W.2d 689, 693-4 (Mo. 1960).

The issue to be determined in this appeal is the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2003. The only evidence presented in this appeal is Complainant=s 2-page Settlement Statement documenting the sale of the subject property for $300,000 to the City of Fulton on December 6, 2003. The evidence of the sale was not refuted or rebutted and is competent and persuasive in support of a market value of $300,000 for the subject property on the tax date.

The 2003 assessed value for the subject property is set at $96,000.

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 Callaway 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 18, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer