State Tax Commission of Missouri
GEIGER REAL ESTATE, INC., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-10759
)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED. Commission finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be $39,600, assessed value of $7,530.
Complainant appeared by Counsel, James P. Gamble, St. Louis, Missouri.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
Case decided by the Commission.
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 grounds of overvaluation, discrimination and failure to notify the record owner of an assessment increase, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $39,600, assessed value of $7,530, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $39,000, assessed value of $7,410.
Pursuant to Order dated March 2, 2006, the case was submitted on briefs, affidavits and exhibits. Complainant’s Brief, Affidavit and Exhibits were received by the Commission on April 10, 2006. Respondent’s Brief and Exhibits were received on June 26, 2006. Complainant’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Brief, Reply Brief, and Supplemental Affidavit were received on July 14, 2006.
The Commission, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record and the briefs of the parties, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Affidavits and Exhibits received on behalf of Complainant were:
Affidavit of Sandy Rothschild.
Supplemental Affidavit of Sandy Rothschild, President of Complainant.
Exhibit A – Copy of Change of Assessment Notice on property at 8656 Geiger Road, St. Louis County, Missouri, locator number 13J310135 (subject property), dated March 24, 2005, addressed to Carolyn Sue Frazier, 8656 Geiger Rd, St. Louis, MO 63121-1823 (1 page).
Exhibit B – Certified Copy of General Warrant Deed, for the subject property, dated December 15, 2004, recorded December 23, 2004, Document Number 597, recorded in Book 16275, pages 1839/1841 of the Records of St. Louis, County, Missouri, Carolyn Sue Frazier, Grantor, Geiger Real Estate, Inc., Grantee, (3 pages).
Exhibit C – Issues for St. Louis County Department of Revenue, document prepared by Sandy Rothschild (3 pages).
Exhibit D – Copy of letter dated November 8, 2005, to Randy Turley, Chief Counsel, Missouri State Tax Commission, from Philip Muehlheausler, Tax Assessor, St. Louis County (3 pages).
Exhibit E – Copy of letter dated November 15, 2005 to James Gamble from Randy Turley, Chief Counsel, Missouri State Tax Commission (2 pages).
Respondent’s Evidence
Exhibits received on behalf of Respondent were:
Exhibit 1 – Copy of Complainant’s Real Property Appeal Form before the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (1 page, front and back).
Exhibit 2 – Copy of Certificate of Value on subject property, dated December 15, 2004, received by COV Section St. Louis County, December 23, 2004 (1 page).
Exhibit 3 – Copy of Property Record Card on Subject Property (3 pages).
Exhibit 4 – Copy of spreadsheet listing of 13 properties on which appeals were filed in fall of 2005 after receipt of 2005 tax bills (1 page).
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 County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at 8565 Geiger Road, St. Louis County, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 13J310135. Complaint for Review of Assessment.
3. The property was purchased by Complainant on December 15, 2004, from Carolyn Sue Frazier for a price of $48,000. Exhibit A; Exhibit 2.
4. Notice of Change in Assessment was sent to Carolyn Sue Frazier at 8656 Geiger Road, St. Louis, MO 63121-1823 and not to Geiger Real Estate, Inc., at 8656 Geiger Rd., St. Louis, Missouri, 63121 or 6340 Clayton Rd, St. Louis, MO 63117. The address of 8656 Geiger Rd., St. Louis, Missouri, 63121 was typed on the General Warranty Deed as the Grantee’s Mailing Address. Handwritten on the General Warranty Deed after the name of Complainant was: MA: 6340 Clayton Rd., St. Louis, MO 63117. Complainant did not receive a Change of Assessment Notice. Exhibits A & B; Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Sandy Rothschild.
5. Complainant appealed to the Board of
Equalization of St. Louis County and had a hearing before the Board. Exhibit
1, Rothschild Affidavit, Item 13, p. 4; Board letter dated August 22, 2005,
filed with Complaint for Review of Assessment..
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND DECISION
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 Commission 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.
Presumptions In Appeals
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 (
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 (
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s and/or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
Required Notice – Sections 137.180 & 137.355,
RSMo
Complainant’s case is grounded upon the provisions of two statutes, Sections 137.180 and 137.355, RSMo. Section 137.180 reads as follows:
“Whenever any assessor shall increase the valuation of any real property he shall forthwith notify the record owner of such increase, either in person, or by mail directed to the last known address; every such increase in assessed valuation made by the assessor shall be subject to review by the county board of equalization whereat the landowner shall be entitled to be heard, and the notice to the landowner shall so state.”
Section 137.355 relates to notice of increased assessment of tangible personal property, not real property. Since the property under appeal is not personal property, this section is not applicable and therefore has no relevance to the legal issue presented.
Complainant’s argument is that as a matter of law, since it did not receive notice as the record owner the increased assessment is void and the property cannot be assessed at a true value in money of $39,600, but must be assessed based upon the prior assessment with a true value in money of $39,000. Complainant relies upon United Missouri Bank of Kansas City, v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678 (Mo. App. 1983).
Complainant’s argument puts form over substance. The crux of the matter must be whether the taxpayer was afforded procedural due process relative to the increase in assessment on its property. It was. Complainant is not entitled to a decision in its favor. Complainant has confessed the jurisdiction of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Complainant availed itself of the administrative remedy before the Board by appealing to the Board.
Complainant wants the Commission to focus on the allegation of the Assessor’s failure to comply with Section 137.180 and mail notice to the last known address of the property owner. Notwithstanding, the notice was addressed to the prior owner by name, it was addressed to one of two addresses given on the warranty deed as the mailing address for Geiger Real Estate, Inc. Exhibit B. However, the remainder of Section 137.180 must be given consideration and application. The requirement of the statute focuses not just on mailing notice to the last known address of the property owner, but just as important, the right of the landowner to be heard before the Board. In other words, the underlying reason for giving notice of increased assessment is to provide the property owner the opportunity to exercise its due process right and be heard before the Board.
In the instant case, Complainant learned of the 2005 reassessment in sufficient time to appeal to the Board. The taxpayer then pursued its administrative remedy before the Board and finally on to this Commission. There was no denial of due process in the present appeal. Complainant was not deprived of its right to pursue its statutory administrative appeal process. Lack of notice or inadequate notice impacts the validity of an Assessor’s assessment only when the lack of notice or inadequate notice denies the property owner the opportunity to pursue administrative remedies. That did not occur in this instance.
Complainant cannot prevail as a matter of law and having presented no other evidence on the issue of overvaluation, the presumptions of correct assessment by the Assessor and the Board must stand. Complainant’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Brief is denied.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $7,530.
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.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Order.
If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts. If no judicial review is made within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Louis 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.
SO ORDERED August 10, 2006.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
_____________________________________
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
_____________________________________
Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner
_____________________________________
Charles Nordwald, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 10th day of August, 2006, to: James Gamble, 8909 Ladue Road, St. Louis, MO 63124, Attorney for Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Attorney for Respondent; Philip A. Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator