ROBERT & PATRICIA RAINS,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-58500
	)
ANDREA STEINHOFF, ASSESSOR,	)
GRUNDY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

Complainants have failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence demonstrating that their parcel was (1) overvalued or (2) assessed at a higher percentage of true value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in Grundy County. The value of $101,020, as set by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.

Complainants appeal the assessment of their residential and agricultural parcel on the ground of overvaluation and discriminatory treatment. 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. Complainants appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by Counsel, Christopher P. Raynes.

The issues in this appeal are (1) Did Respondent overvalue the residential and agricultural portions of Complainants= parcel and (2) Did Respondent discriminate against Complainants by assessing their property at a higher percentage of true value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in Grundy County?

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

2. The property under appeal consists of a 39 acre tract, one acre of which is classified as residential and is improved with a one and one-half story, 1,288 square foot, modular home over a full unfinished basement. The home was assembled on the site in 1999. It contains 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. Other amenities include a wood deck and porch, and a large outbuilding. The property is identified as parcel number 015-06-06-23-0-0-0-007.

3. Complainants asserted a value of $61,870 (assessed value $11,760) for the residential portion of their property and $9,050 (assessed value $1,090) for the agricultural portion of their property. Complainants presented no market data in support of their opinion of value. Complainants presented no evidence tending to show that their agricultural land was misclassed. Complainants presented no evidence of discriminatory treatment.

4. Respondent advocated the value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, to wit, $79,200 (assessed value $15,050) for the residential portion of the parcel and $21,800 (assessed value $2,620) for the agricultural portion of the parcel. Respondent presented market evidence demonstrating that houses similar to the subject property sold for $70,000 to $92,000 if located within the city limits of Trenton, Missouri and sold for $73,599 to $118,000 if located outside the city limits of Trenton, Missouri.

5. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2003, was: $79,200 (assessed value $15,050) for the residential portion of the parcel and $21,800 (assessed value $2,620) for the agricultural portion of the parcel.

6. 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 Complainants must demonstrate, by substantial and persuasive evidence, that their residential property is assessed at a higher percentage of true value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in Grundy County.

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).

Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove:

1. The level of assessment for the subject property in 2003. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor=s office.

2. The average level of assessment for residential property in Grundy County in 2003. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Grundy County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property the assessor=s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.

3. That the disparity between (1) and (2) is grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986).

DISCUSSION

Complainants presented no market evidence in support of their opinion of value for their property. Further, Complainants presented no evidence which would tend to demonstrate that their property was being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in Grundy County.

Complainants have failed to meet their burden of proof.

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