LANNIE HARKINS,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-58501
	)
ANDREA STEINHOFF, ASSESSOR,	)
GRUNDY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

Complainant has failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence demonstrating that his property would sell for no more than $70,000 on January 1, 2003. The value of $82,020, as set by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeals the assessment of his residential parcel on the ground of overvaluation. On February 17, 2004, an evidentiary hearing was held before the Tax Commission hearing officer, Luann Johnson, at the Grundy County Courthouse in Trenton, Missouri. Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared in person and was represented by Counsel, Christopher P. Raynes.

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

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

2. The property under appeal is a 22,125 square foot lot improved with a two-story frame home built in approximately 1900. The house has 1,166 square foot on the main level and the second level. It also has a one story addition containing 654 square feet. The total living area is 2,986 square feet. In addition, the property has two detached garages containing 672 and 576 square feet respectively. The property is identified as parcel number 001-11-04-17-04-34-001.00, more commonly known as 300 West Crowder Road, Trenton, Grundy County, Missouri.

3. Complainant asserted a value of $70,000 (assessed value $13,300). In support of his opinion of value, Complainant testified that he purchased the subject property in 1998 for $70,000.

4. In further support of his opinion, Complainant pointed to a similar property which sold for $45,000 and a second property which sold for $50,000. Respondent testified that Complainant=s property was superior to the property which sold for $50,000. Respondent further testified that the property which sold for $45,000 was purchased for the purpose of creating a parking lot of a college and that it was the college=s intention to demolish the home sitting on that lot.

5. Respondent advocated the value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, to wit, $82,020 (assessed value $15,580). Respondent presented market evidence demonstrating that houses similar to the subject property, after adjustment for areas of significant variation, indicated a value for the subject property of: $83,663; $86,791; $77,988; $86,078 and $86,476. All indicated values supported the value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board.

6. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2003 was: $82,020 (assessed value $15,580).

7. 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 his residential property was $70,000 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 approved by the Board of Equalization does not represent the true value in money for his property on the tax day. Complainant has failed to meet that burden of proof. Unadjusted sales prices of other properties does not rise to the level of substantial and persuasive evidence of the value of the subject property.

ORDER

The assessed value determined by the Assessor and approved 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 Grundy 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 February 27, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer