WALTER ADKINS,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-33005
	)
JEAN TWITTY, ASSESSOR,	)
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Decision of the Greene County Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject personal property (the motor home only) for tax year 2003 is set at $19,470, assessed value of $6,490.

Complainant represented pro se.

Respondent represented pro se.

Case decided by Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject personal property, on January 1, 2003.

Complainant appeals the assessment by the Assessor of a 1993 32 foot Holiday Rambler motor home. The Assessor determined a fair market value of $19,470 (assessed value of $6,490, as personal property). By agreement of the parties the case was submitted on written statements filed with the Commission.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainant filed with his Complaint for Review of Assessment a copy of his 2002 and 2003 personal property tax bills. The 2002 tax bill showed a total assessed value for four motor vehicles of $6,390. The 2003 tax bill showed a total assessed value for the same four motor vehicles of $7,750. Complainant also submitted a letter setting forth that in 2002 his 1993 Holiday Ramble motor home was assessed at a fair market value of $16,000 and $19,470 in 2003. He contested this increase in value.

Respondent submitted a letter explaining that the 1993 motor home was assessed in 2002 for $16,200, fair market value (or trade-in value). However, this was in error as the motor home should have been valued at $47,100. For tax year 2003 the NADA appraisal guide was used to value the motor home and it was valued at the trade-in amount of $19,470.

1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission upon receipt of his personal property tax bill for 2003.

2. The subject property consists of a 1993 Holiday Rambler 32 foot motor home. The other motor vehicles listed on Complainant=s tax bill included a 1993 Pontiac Sunbird, a 1988 Ford Pickup Truck and a 1980 Suzuki 850cc motorcycle. Complainant=s Tax ID number is 12-029-399.

3. Complainant did not present any evidence from which the fair market value of any of the vehicles could be established.

4. Respondent valued the subject motor home relying on the valued showing by the September through December, 2002 NADA appraisal guide for recreational vehicles. This is an appropriate guide for the Assessor to utilize for the valuation of motor vehicles. The 2002 NADA appraisal guide listed the trade in value for a 32 foot 1993 Holiday Rambler to be $19,470.

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo. The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Section 138.431.4, RSMo.

Section 137.115, RSMo 1994, 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 bought by one who is willing or desirous 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).

Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated.

2. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interests.

3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

4. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

5. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

6. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction.

Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; See also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.

In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer has the duty to inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer=s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon its inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo.

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

In order to prevail, Complainant must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2003. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897. Substantial 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). 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). See also, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970). The owner=s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation. Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).

The assessor is to use the trade-in value published in the October issue of the National Automobile Dealers= Association official Used Car Guide, or its successor publication, as the recommended guide of information for determining the true value in money of motor vehicles described in such publication. Section 137.115.9, RSMo.

Complainant took issue with the valuation on his 1993 motor home being increased in 2002 from $16,000 to $19,470 in 2003. An increase in value from one tax year to another on motor vehicles does not establish the fair market value of the vehicle for either tax year. It is understandable that one would question an increase in value of a motor home from one year to another. However, in this instance, from the information provided by the Assessor, Complainant=s motor home was undervalued in 2002.

Complainant has the burden when challenging the valuation by the Assessor to come forward with substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value which Complainant proposes. In this instance, Complainant did not propose any value for the 1993 motor home. Nor did Complainant present any evidence as to what a used 1993 32 foot Holiday Ramble would have sold for on or about January 1, 2003. Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof on the only issue presented to the Commission the fair market value of the subject motor home. No evidence was presented as to any of the other vehicles either. Therefore, that issue is not before the Commission.

A review of the NADA appraisal guide for recreational vehicles for September through December, 2002 shows the trade-in value for Complainant=s motor home would have been $19,470. This confirms Respondent=s information that the motor home was valued by this appraisal tool. The only evidence of the fair market value of the Complainant=s motor home is that presented by the Assessor.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Greene County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2003 is set at $7,750 - total assessed value for all of Complainant=s motor vehicles.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific 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. Section 138.432, RSMo 1994.

If an application for review of this 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 Greene 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.

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 March 12, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor, Hearing Officer