State Tax Commission of
TED & DOROTHY FARRELL, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeals No. 05-73004 thru 05-73006
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decisions of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject properties for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be:
|
Appeal Number |
True Value |
Assessed Value |
|
05-73004 |
$18,000 |
$2,160 |
|
05-73005 |
$20,500 |
$2,460 |
|
05-73006 |
$195,000 |
$23,400 |
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 these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005.
SUMMARY
Complainants
appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Morgan County
Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject properties. 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 in each appeal. Exhibit A was received into evidence in each appeal.
Exhibit A in Appeal 05-73004 consisted of (1) copy of letter to Morgan County Collector from Complainants, dated December 30, 2005, with a copy of the tax bill attached; (2) copy of letter to Hearing Officer from Complainants, dated March 3, 2006, with a copy of the tax bill attached; (3) copy of Notice of Change of Assessed Value with copy of 2004 tax bill; (4) copy of listing of various of Complainant’s properties appealed to the Board and the assessed values by Assessor and Board; and (4) a map showing the location of the subject tract.
Exhibit A in Appeal 05-73005 consisted of (1) copy of letter to Morgan County Collector from Complainants, dated December 30, 2005, with a copy of the tax bill attached; (2) copy of letter to Hearing Officer from Complainants, dated March 3, 2006; (3) copy of Notice of Change of Assessed Value with copy of 2004 tax bill; (4) copy of listing of various of Complainant’s properties appealed to the Board and the assessed values by Assessor and Board; (4) information on 2004 taxes and 2005 market and assessed value on the Bendco property which adjoins part of the subject tract; and (5) a map showing the location of the subject tract and adjoining properties.
Exhibit A in Appeal 05-73006 consisted of (1) copy of letter to Morgan County Collector from Complainants, dated December 30, 2005, with a copy of the tax bill attached; (2) copy of letter to Hearing Officer from Complainants, dated March 3, 2006; (3) copy of Notice of Change of Assessed Value with copy of 2004 tax bill; (4) copy of listing of various of Complainant’s properties appealed to the Board and the assessed values by Assessor and Board; (4) information on 2004 taxes and 2005 market and assessed value on the Bendco property which adjoins part of the subject tract; and (5) a map showing the location of the subject tract and adjoining properties.
Exhibit B in each of the three appeals was a copy of the Property Record Card on Bendco property and Beebe property.
The exhibits were received into evidence.
Mr. Farrell testified he wanted the assessment rolled back to match the value placed on the Bendco property. Historically, according to Mr. Farrell’s testimony his farm had been valued in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 by the Board of Equalization the same on a per acre basis at the Bendco farm. Complainants felt this was equitable given that the land on both his and the Bendco property is essentially the same, hills and woodland.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent testified in his own behalf. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 was received into evidence as applicable to each of the appeals. Exhibit 1 consisted of: (1) copy of Complaint for Review of Assessment in each appeal; (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 for sales applicable to each appeal; (5) copy of map showing location of subject and other parcels; (6) copy of aerial photo of the subject area; and (7) copies of Property Record Cards on the three properties.
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 properties are located on in rural Morgan County, Missouri. The three tracts combined comprise a total area of approximately 518.90 acres of wooded hill land. The properties are identified by locator number, Assessor’s value (appraised/assessed) and size as follows:
|
Appeal Number |
Parcel Number |
True Value |
Assessed Value |
Acreage |
|
05-73004 |
176024000000012000 |
$18,000 |
$2,160 |
40 acres |
|
05-73005 |
177025000000001001 |
$20,500 |
$2,460 |
45.55 acres |
|
05-73006 |
177025000000001000 |
$195,000 |
$23,400 |
433.35 acres |
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2006. The land is vacant and unused agricultural land. For purposes of arriving at fair market value the three tracts should be consider to be a single large tract of approximately 519 acres, as opposed to three 40, 45.55 and 433.35 acre tracts of land, irrespective of the need to identify them as three separate parcels of land.
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 property should be valued at the same per acre value as adjoining property.
5. The Assessor valued each of the tracts at $450 per acre, fair market value, assessed at 12% as vacant and unused agricultural land.
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 (
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
Complainants’ opinion of value for the subject 519 acres is based upon the fact that in the past the Board of Equalization placed the same per acre value on the subject parcels as was placed on an adjoining tract of land. This is not a recognized methodology for establishing fair market value in an appeal before the Commission. It does not constitute substantial and persuasive evidence of the fair market value of the property as of January 1, 2005. Nor does the failure of the Assessor or Board to continue to value the Complainants’ land the same per acre as a neighboring tract of land constitute discrimination in assessment. There is no requirement that neighboring properties be valued exactly the same on a per acre basis. Differences in sizes of tracts of very similar land may result in a different per acre value for different tracts.
Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof and the assessments made 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 in Appeal 05-73004 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $2,160.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-73005 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $2,460.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-73006 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $23,400.
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 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 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 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