State Tax Commission of Missouri
MARYLYN COLBURN, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-62507
)
DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR, )
JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 set at $66,820, assessed value of $11,450, as mixed residential and agricultural property.
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, discrimination and misgraded agricultural land, the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization, which reduced the assessed valuation of the subject property from $12,470 to $11,450. The Assessor determined an assessed value as residential and agricultural property. Complainant proposed an appraised value of $45,610. 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’s husband testified on behalf of Complainant. An opinion of value of $45,610 was offered, based upon this being the prior valuation of the property for 2003. Complainant contested the moving of five manufactured homes on the property from the classification of personal property to real property and having them assessed as such. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A – copy of the 2004 and 2005 tax bills on the subject parcel showing that the assessed valuation had increased from $7,160 (taxes of $306.16) to $12,470 (taxes of $571.39) because the five manufactured homes had been added as real property. Exhibit A was received into evidence.
No evidence or testimony was provided addressing the issued of discrimination or misgraded agricultural land.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 and the testimony of Lisa Perry, Deputy Assessor in explanation of Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 consisted of the property record card on the subject property, 6 photographs of residential structures on the subject, computer data sheets on the manufactured homes and a map of the subject site. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.
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 6746 County Road 200, Joplin, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 15-5.0-15-7.000. The property consists of 15.94 acres, 6 acres of which are classified as residential home sites for the five manufactured homes and the one wood frame house on the property, and 9.94 acres are agricultural graded land.
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 $45,610.
5. There was no evidence to support either the claim of discrimination or the claim of misgraded agricultural land. Both claims are deemed abandoned.
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 (
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 (
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 (
Complainant failed to meet her burden of proof in this appeal. 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 opinion of value offered in this case was simply the value from the prior assessment. This is not a proper methodology for the valuation of real property in Missouri.
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 value established in a prior assessment
cycle is not recognized by either the courts of Missouri, the Commission or
appraisers as a valid method for the appraisal of real property for ad valorem
tax purposes.
Complainant’s claim that the five manufactured homes which had been on the subject site for some time and which had previously been assessed only as personal property and not as part of this residential/agricultural tract of land, should be assessed only as personal property is without merit. Manufactured homes used actually used as dwelling units are to be assessed as residential property. Section 137.115.6, RSMo. The valuation issue in this case was not what the fair market value of an individual manufactured home or a group of five such homes was on January 1, 2005. The valuation issue is what was the fair market value of the subject real property as it existed on January 1, 2005, improved by a wood frame single-family dwelling and five manufactured homes and other improvements? Complainant presented no evidence addressing this issue. Copies of tax bills are not probative of fair market value in an appeal before the Commission. Therefore, having failed to meet the burden of proof, judgment is in favor of Respondent and the assessment by the Board is affirmed.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined 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 $11,450.
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 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: Marilyn Colburn, P.O. Box 395, Alba, MO 64830, 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