State Tax Commission of Missouri
IRMA THOMAS DENNIS, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeals No. 05-20031 & 05-20032
)
ED BUSHMEYER, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization in Appeal 05-20031 increasing 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 $104,420, assessed value of $19,840.
Decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization in Appeal 05-20032 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 $62,000, assessed value of $11,780.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Carl W. Yates, III, Associate County Counselor.
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, 2005.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization, which increased the valuation of the subject property in Appeal 05-20031. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $64,000, assessed value of $12,160, as residential property. The Board increased the value to $104,420, assessed value of $19,840. Complainant proposed a value of $40,000.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property in Appeal 05-20032. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $62,000, assessed value of $11,780, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $30,000.
A hearing was conducted on March 7, 2006, at the St. Louis City Hall, St. Louis, 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 her own behalf. She gave an opinion of value of $40,000 for the property in Appeal 05-20031 and an opinion of value of $30,000 for the property in Appeal 05-20032.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Chris Roth, appraiser for St. Louis City. The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject properties. The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Roth was received into evidence in each appeal. Mr. Roth arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property in Appeal 05-20031 of $180,000 and a value of $160,000 for the property in Appeal 05-20032. The opinions of value were based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of three properties which he deemed to be comparable to each of the subject properties. Exhibit 1 in Appeal 05-20031 was offered in support of the Board’s value. Exhibit 1 in Appeal 05-20032 was offered in support of the Assessor and Board’s value.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization.
2. The subject properties are located at 4336 and 4334 Maryland Ave, St. Louis, Missouri, respectively. The 4336 property is identified by locator number 3908-00-0160-0. The 4334 property is identified by locator number 3908-00-0170-0.
Each of the properties consists of a lot containing 3,500 square feet, more or less. Each lot is improved by half of a two-story brick two-family residence which has been split into two town homes each containing approximately 2,036 square feet of living area. There is an unfinished full based of approximately 1,018 square feet in each townhouse. The structures were built in about 1890. They are in average condition for their age. The 4336 property is occupied as the residence of Complainant and the 4334 property is unoccupied. Exhibit 1, pp. 5 & 6.
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 presumptions of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $40,000 and $30,000 respectively.
5. The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser in performing his appraisal were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property. The properties were located within a three blocks of the subject, one being on the same street. Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2005. The sale properties were similar to the subject in style, quality of construction, age, condition, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability. The appraiser properly adjusted for differences between the subject and each sale property. The adjustments made were appropriate for the present appraisal problem. No interior inspection by the appraiser was permitted by the owner. The owner did not challenge or refute any of the descriptive conclusions reached by the appraiser.
6. Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject properties, as of January 1, 2005, to be $104,420 and $62,000 respectively and sustain the Board. Respondent’s appraisals were accepted only to sustain the assessment made by the Board in Appeal 05-20031 and the assessment made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board in Appeal 05-20032 and not for the purpose of raising the assessments above those values.
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 (
Presumption on Assessor’s Value
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, 348-349 (
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; Exhibit 1, pp. 3-4.
Opinion Testimony by Experts
If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.
The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Section 490.065, RSMo; Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
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 (
Owner’s Opinion of Value
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
Methods of Valuation
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).
Evidence of Increase in Value
In any case in St. Louis City where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal. Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075.
DECISION
Complainant failed to meet her burden of proof. There was no substantial and persuasive evidence provided to support the fair market values proffered by Ms. Dennis. The owner’s opinion was not based upon a methodology that is recognized by the courts, this Commission or by appraisers. An owner’s opinion that is not supported by a methodology that is recognized for the appraisal of property in an ad valorem tax appeal is not based upon proper elements or a proper foundation and therefore has no probative value.
The owner failed to rebut the presumptions of correct assessment, therefore the assessments must be affirmed.
ORDER
Appeal 05-20031
The assessed valuation for the subject property in Appeal 05-20031 as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis City for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-20031 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $19,840.
Appeal 05-20032
The assessed valuation for the subject property in Appeal 05-20032 as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis City for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-20031 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $11,780.
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 these appeals 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. Louis City, 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 these appeals. 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 April 4, 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 4th day of April, 2006, to: Irma Dennis, 4336 Maryland Ave., St. Louis, MO 63108, Complainant; Carl W. Yates III, Associate City Counselor, 314 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103, Attorney for Respondent; Ed Bushmeyer, Assessor, 120 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103; Ronald Leggett, Collector, 110 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator