State Tax Commission of
TED & DOROTHY FARRELL, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-73001
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Morgan 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 $7,200, assessed value of $1,370.
Complainants
appeared in person and by Counsel, Alan Clever,
Respondent appeared Pro Se.
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 and misclassification, the decision of
the Morgan County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the
subject property. The Assessor determined
an appraised value of $7,200, assessed value of $1,370, as residential
property). Complainant proposed a value
of $2,000, assessed value of $240, as agricultural land. A hearing was conducted on March 3, 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.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant, Ted Farrell testified in his own behalf. Exhibit A was received into evidence. Exhibit A consisted (1) copy of letter to Morgan County Collector from Complainants, dated February 3, 2006; (2) copy of letter to Hearing Officer from Complainants, dated March 3, 2006; and (3) copy of Notice of Change of Assessed Value dated May 15, 2005.
Mr. Farrell testified the parcel was steep, wooded land, with no structures or utilities. The property had been listed in the past for sale at $2,000, but had received no offers.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent testified in his own behalf. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 was received into evidence. Exhibit 1 consisted of: (1) copy of Complaint for Review of Assessment; (2) copy of Property Record Card on subject property; (3) statement of Assessor on sales comparison valuation of subject property; (4) sales grid prepared by Assessor relying on 3 sales of unimproved lots within 4 miles of the subject; (5) copies of sales letters and PRC’s on the 3 sales properties utilized in the sales comparison valuation; (6) aerial photograph showing the subject land and (7) five photographs of house and garage on adjoining 4.9 acre tract.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located on
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 Assessor and the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $2,000.
5. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor and the Board and establish the property should be classified as vacant and unused agricultural land.
6. The subject tract of land is one of at
least ten tracts of in a range from 4.53 to 4.96 acres along
The property to the right of the subject as one faces the subject, has
residential improvements on it.
7. The property is not used for agricultural purposes. The evidence failed to demonstrate under the eight factors of Section 137.016.5, RSMo, that the immediate most suitable economic use of the subject property would be agricultural.
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
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 (Mo. 2005). Citing to Hermel,
supra; and Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d
696, 702 (
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 and classification should
have been for 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.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to
prevail, Complainants 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 (
Complainants must present substantial and persuasive evidence that the immediate most suitable economic use of the subject property after consideration of immediate prior use, location, zoning, legal restrictions, availability of water and utilities, size, access and any other relevant factors would be an agricultural use in order to have the property assessed at twelve percent of fair market value. Section 137.016.5 RSMo.
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
DECISION
The owner’s opinion of value was not supported by substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value of $420 per acre for the property, based upon having not received any offers to purchase. Therefore, the owner’s opinion was not demonstrated to be based upon proper elements or a proper foundation. Nor was the evidence presented by owners sufficient to address the eight factors set out in the statute to determine the classification of the subject as a vacant and unused tract to be agricultural.
Therefore, Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof and rebut the presumptions of correct assessment by the Assessor and the Board. The valuation and classification as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board must be affirmed.
ORDER
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained
by the Board of Equalization for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $1,370.
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.
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 March 23, 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 23rd day of March, 2006, to: Alan Clever, P.O. Box 1070, Laurie, MO 65038, Attorney for 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