State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

SHELDON J. COMBS,                                  )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 05-68502

)                        

GRACE THOMAS, ASSESSOR,                   )

MADISON COUNTY, MISSOURI,              )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Madison County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be $32,840 ($27,600 – Residential; $5,240 – Agricultural), assessed value of $9,070 ($8,100 – Residential; $970 – Agricultural).

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Dwight Robbins, 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 Madison County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.  The Assessor determined an appraised value of $27,600, assessed value of $8,100, as residential property and $5,240, assessed value of $970, as agricultural property.  Complainant did not challenge the agricultural assessment, nor the residential assessment on the subject improvements, but only challenge the residential valuation of one acre as a home site.  A hearing was conducted on January 19, 2006, 2005, at the Madison County Courthouse, Fredericktown, 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 offered into evidence the following four exhibits.

Exhibit A – Assessor’s Property Record Card on property owned by Russell and Betty Jones.

Exhibit B – Assessor’s Property Record Card on property owned by Merle W. Guenther Trust.

Exhibit C – Assessor’s Property Record Card on property owned by Bobby Dale Wagganer.

Exhibit D – Assessor’s Property Record Card on the subject property.

Objection was made to Exhibits A, B and C on the grounds of relevancy the objection was sustained.  The exhibits were excluded from evidence and not considered in making a determination of fair market value in this appeal.  The exhibits are retained in the Commission file only for the purpose of maintaining the documents offered by Complainant, for this appeal.  See, Exclusion of Exhibits, Under Conclusions of Law and Decision, Complainant’s Burden of Proof, infra.

Complainant testified in his own behalf.  Mr. Combs challenged the classification of one acre as residential for a home site.  Complainant contended he only mowed about .20 of an acre and that is all that should be assessed as residential and that it should only be valued at $3,000.

Respondent’s Evidence

            Respondent offered into evidence a document providing an explanation of the mass appraisal assessment of the subject property (Exhibit 1) prepared by Roger Arnzen, state certified general real estate appraiser.  Mr. Arnzen could not develop an appraisal of the property due to the lack of any comparable sales from which he could perform a sales comparison approach.  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 Madison County Board of Equalization.

2.         The subject property is located at 3602 Madison 208, Fredericktown, Missouri.  The property is identified by locator number 08-4.1-17-000-000-030.000.  The property consists of 42.2 acres.  The land is improved by a residence and a small agricultural shed.  There is no fenced area which could be identified as the home site.  The house is located at the end of a driveway approximately a quarter of mile from the county road.

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

4.         Complainant’s evidence did not establish that the classification of one acre as a home site was erroneous.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment 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).


The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence.  A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary.  In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. 

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.

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainant must present substantial and persuasive evidence that the classification of one acre as residential to account for a home site is in error.  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).

This standard has not been met in this case.  Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof to rebut the presumptions of correct assessment and establish that only .20 of an acre should be classified as residential land.  The amount of land that a property owner elects to mow is not determinative of what portion of a farm should be classified for the home site.  This case simply boils down to the owner believing .20 of an acre represents an appropriate home site because that is all that he wants to mow around the subject house.  Absent a more definitive boundary than where the owner mows Complainant did not establish that the subject home site should only be .20 of an acre.  There is no supporting evidence to demonstrate that as a general rule the Assessor has failed to apply a uniform standard in classifying the home site area on farms in Madison County.  Nor did Complainant establish that as a general rule a significant number of farms without fenced yards have been assessed in Madison county with only a .20 of an acre home site.

The determination of a home site for a farm is a matter of the exercise of discretion by the Assessor.  In those circumstances where the actual yard surrounding a house is fenced and is only a quarter or half an acre then it would be appropriate for the Assessor to only classify the land actually inside a yard fence as residential.  In other instances two or more acres might also be fenced to serve as the yard and supporting land for the home site.  In those case, then classification of a larger land area that is actually fenced as a home site would be appropriate.  In the present case, the selection of one acre by the Assessor as a home site for the subject has not been demonstrated to be unreasonable or inequitable in relation to other farm properties.

Exclusion of Exhibits

            Exhibits A, B and C have no relevance to support Complainant’s position on the issue of the classification of land for a home site.  Mr. Combs testified he wanted to establish that there are home sites of different areas than an acre on other properties.  He selected the three properties represented by these three exhibits.  Three properties is hardly an adequate number to demonstrate that as a general rule in Madison County the Assessor sets aside home sites of varying sizes on properties such as the subject.

            Exhibit A is a property record card on a 70.7 acre farm.  The Assessor classified one acre of this property as the residential home site.  Complainant’s Exhibit A would only show that the property has a one-acre home site just like the subject.  Therefore, it doesn’t support Complainant’s theory of the case.

            Exhibit B is the property record card on only a nine-acre tract of land.  Complainant attempted to argue that since the assessor had classified two half-acre portions as residential that this supported creating a smaller home site than one acre for the subject.  However, Complainant apparently failed to understand that there are two actual home sites on these nine acres.  One home site is for a residence with 1,714 square feet adjusted area.  The other home site is for three manufacturer homes (1 – 12 x 55 foot home and 2 – 12 x 60 homes). 

This property is clearly not the same type of property as the subject.  The subject is nearly five times larger than this property.  The subject has only one home site.  There simply is no correlation between the manner in which the Assessor has established the home site size for the subject and the property in Exhibit B.

Exhibit C is a property that is only .30 of an acre.  There is no agricultural land with this property.  It is nothing more than a residential lot.  Therefore it is totally proper that less than an acre be classified as residential, since the property is not large enough for an acre home site.  


ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $9,070 ($8,100 – Residential and $970 – Agricultural).

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 Madison 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:  Sheldon Combs, 502 Albert Street, Fredericktown, MO 63645, Complainant; Dwight Robbins, Prosecuting Attorney, 116 N. Mine La Motte, Fredericktown, MO 63645, Attorney for Respondent; Grace Thomas, Assessor, #1 Court Square, Fredericktown, MO 63645; Joan Whitener, Clerk, #1 Courthouse Square, Fredericktown, MO 63645; Danny Thompson, Collector, #1 Courthouse Square, Fredericktown, MO 63645.

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator