MARVIN MCDONALD,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-58503
	)
ANDREA STEINHOFF, ASSESSOR,	)
GRUNDY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Complainant has failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence demonstrating that his residential real property would sell for no more than $30,000 on January 1, 2003. The value of $49,900, as set by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeals the assessment of his residential property 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 pro se.

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 one acre lot improved with a one story frame home built in approximately 1948. The house has 1,568 square foot of living area. The parcel also contains agricultural land and improvements which are not under appeal. The property is identified as parcel number 002-05-06-13-00-00-001.00, more commonly known as 688 NW Highway A, Trenton, Grundy County, Missouri.

3. Complainant asserted a value of $30,000 (assessed value $5,700) for the residential portion of the property. Complainant presented no market data in support of his opinion of value but testified that the substantial increase in his property valuation was unwarranted and demonstrated that the decision of the Assessor=s office to raise his property value was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

4. In further support of his opinion, Complainant testified that his home needed painting, shingles and updating.

5. Respondent advocated the value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, to wit, $49,900 (assessed value $9,480). Respondent presented three unadjusted sales which supported the initial value of the subject residential property. Respondent=s comparable sale number 1 was a 1920's home with 40 acres which sold for $75,000. Respondent=s comparable sale number 2 was a 1967 ranch which sold for $139,000 with 40 acres and later sold again for $85,000 with four acres. Respondent=s comparable number 3 was a 1950's home with one acre which sold for $35,000. All indicated values supported the value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board.

6. The true value in money for the residential real property on January 1, 2003, was: $49,900 (assessed value $9,480).

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 $30,000 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. Complainant has presented no market data which supports his opinion of value.

Complainant asserts that the increase in his taxes over the last few years was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. We find that the Respondent was assessing the property based upon its market value pursuant to the statutory requirements. Such action is not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

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