State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

THOMAS ARCADIPANE,                             )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 05-62502

)                        

DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR,                            )

JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI,                   )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 set at $55,760, assessed value of $10,590.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Jared P. Stilley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.  The Assessor determined an appraised value of $55,760, assessed value of $10,590, as residential property.  Complainant proposed a value of $45,000, assessed value of $8,550.  A hearing was conducted on January 24, 2006, at the Jasper County Annex, Carthage, Missouri.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant testified in his own behalf.  He offered an opinion of value of $45,000, this value was derived from the fact that in the 2003 assessment the property had been valued by the assessor at this value.  Complainant testified that since he had not made any improvements or upgrading to the property since 2003 he felt there should be no increase in the value.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 and the testimony of John Bailey, Deputy Field Assessor.  Exhibit 1 consisted of the property record card on the subject and property record cards with sales data on two other properties in the subject neighborhood which Mr. Bailey deemed comparable to the subject.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.         The subject property is located at 1706 Sergeant, Joplin, Missouri.  The property is identified by locator number 19-2.0-10-40-044-017.000.  The property consists of a 50 by 125 lot improved by a single family two-story dwelling constructed in 1920, with a detached garage.  The house contains approximately 2,000 square feet of living area

3.         There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2006.

4.         Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $45,000.

5.         Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2005, to be $55,760.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Jurisdiction

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.

Board of Equalization Presumption

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.  Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958).


Presumption on Assessor’s Value

The Supreme Court of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed correct.”  Donna Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., SC86181, 3/01/2005.   Citing to Hermel, supra; and Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

Rebutting of Presumption of Correct Assessment

            The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.  Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.

Standard for Valuation

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 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, supra.

Market Value

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.

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

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, 2005.  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).

Complainant has not met his burden of proof in this instance.  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).  In this case, the owner basis his opinion of value on what the property was previously appraised at by the Assessor for the 2003 assessment cycle.  This is not an appropriate methodology for valuation of the property for 2005.

Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).  The owner’s reliance on the prior appraised value of his property is not a method that has been accepted by the courts of this state.  Neither is it recognized by the Commission or by appraisers of real property.  Therefore, Complainant’s opinion of value is not based upon proper elements or a proper foundation and has no probative value in this appeal.

Since Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof and rebut the presumptions of corrects assessment, the valuation determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of $55,760 as fair market value must be affirmed.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Jasper County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $10,590.

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 2000.

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 St. Jasper 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 or all 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 3, 2006.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer

 

 

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 3rd day of  February , 2006 to:    Thomas Arcadipane, 2926 Duquesne, Joplin, MO 64804, Complainant; Jared Stilley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 601 Pearl, Room 100, Joplin, MO 64801, Attorney for Respondent; Donald Davis, Assessor, 302 S. Main Street, Carthage, MO 64836; Ron Mosbaugh, Clerk; Stephen Holt, Collector, Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, MO 64836.

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator