State
Tax Commission of Missouri
JAMES BROWN, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeals Number 06-73003 & 06-73004
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor in appeal 06-73003 is AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2006 to be $10,100, assessed value of $1,920.
Decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor in appeal 06-73004 is SET ASIDE. Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2006 to be $2,000, assessed value of $380, as stipulated to at hearing by Respondent.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2006, under the economic conditions existing as of January 1, 2005.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Morgan County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuations of the subject properties.
In Appeal 05-73003, the Assessor determined an appraised value of $10,100 assessed value of $1,920, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $6,000 assessed value of $1,140.
In Appeal 05-73004, the Assessor determined an appraised value of $2,790, assessed value of $530, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $2,000 assessed value of $380.
A hearing was
conducted on November 9, 2006, at the Morgan County Courthouse,
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Appeal 06-73003
Complainant’s
Evidence
Complainant offered into evidence Exhibits A & B. The exhibits were received into evidence without objection.
Exhibit A –
Invoice Number 024039, dated 2/26/03 from Byler Building Supply,
Exhibit B – Settlement Statement dated 12/23/02 for purchase of subject lot at $1,000.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report with supporting documents prepared by Respondent in support of the original valuation sustained by the Board. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over these appeals is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
Appeal 06-73003
2. The subject property in Appeal 06-73003 is Lots 35/36, Block 14A, Golden Beach Unit 4, Morgan County, Missouri. The property is identified by parcel number 15.7-26-2-4-1.1. The property consists of an irregular lot of 1 acre, more or less, improved by a 30 x 40 x 12 painted metal pole barn.
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 $6,000.
5. Based upon the presumptions of correct assessment by the Assessor and the Board of Equalization the true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2005, was $10,100.
Appeal 06-73004
6. At the evidentiary hearing in Appeal 06-73004 Respondent stipulated to the value of $2,000, as proposed by Complainant. Stipulation was approved on the record by the Hearing Officer.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND DECISION
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.
Presumptions in Appeals
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
The Supreme
Court of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed
correct.” Snider v. Casino
Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (
The
presumptions of correct assessment are 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. The evidence
presented by Complainant on the value of the property under appeal did not rise
to the level of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumptions of correct
assessment.
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 (
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 (
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
The Hearing Officer is not persuaded that Exhibits A and B establish fair market value. The purchase price of the subject property in December 2002 as an unimproved lot has limited persuasive value to establish true value in money of the property on January 2005 that has been improved by the pole barn. The sum of the cost of the unimproved lot in 2002 and the cost for materials to construct the pole barn in early 2003 do not necessarily equate to what a willing buyer and seller would pay for the property under appeal in January 2005.
Exhibit A – the invoice for building materials – has a detailed listing of materials. There is no item for the labor to construct the pole barn. The invoice is not from a contracting firm, but a building supply company. No evidence was present which established the cost for site preparation for the construction.
Complainant’s testimony and Exhibits A and B simply do not persuade the Hearing Officer that $6,000 was the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005. Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor and Board are not rebutted.
ORDER
Appeal 06-73003
The assessed
valuation for the subject property in Appeal 06-73003 as determined by the
Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 06-73003 for tax year 2006 is set at $1,920.
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 Morgan 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.
Appeal 06-73004
The assessed
valuation for the subject property in Appeal 06-73004 as determined by the
Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 06-73004 for tax year 2006 is set at $380.
The Collector of Morgan 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 Appeal 06-73004. 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 November 21, 2006.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
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 21st day of November, 2006, to: James Brown, 3259 Gillham Plaza, Kansas City, MO 64109, Complainant; Marvin Opie, Prosecuting Attorney, Morgan County Justice Center, Versailles, MO 65084, Attorney for Respondent; Robert Raines, Assessor, 100 East Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Cathy Daniels, Clerk, 100 East Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Clark Hunter, Collector, P.O. Box 315, Versailles, MO 65084.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator