State Tax Commission of Missouri
JAMES JENKINS, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-10099
)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, SET ASIDE. Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be $300,400, assessed value of $57,080.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
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 St. Louis County
Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject
property. The Assessor determined an
appraised value of $391,700, assessed value of $74,420, as residential
property. Complainant proposed a value
of $200,000, assessed value of $38,000.
A hearing was conducted on May 9, 2006, at the
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 his own behalf. Mr. Jenkins offered an opinion of value of $200,000. He arrived at his opinion of value by deducting $75,000 for updating and repairs to his home from the value of $290,000 established by an appraisal of the subject property. He then deducted a additional $15,000 as the cost of preparing his property for presentation in a marketable condition.
Complainant offered the following exhibits into evidence.
Exhibit A – Appraisal report, dated April 11, 2005, prepared by David K. Kaltenbach, State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser, opinion a value of $290,00 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.
Exhibit B – Consulting Report of J & B Inspections, dated October 19, 2005, covering numerous items of deferred maintenance in the subject property.
Exhibit C – Estimate of repairs and renovations by All around Home Maintenance setting for an estimate of $138,700 to cover the repairs and renovations listed in the report.
There were no objections to the exhibits and they were received into the record.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent
placed into evidence the testimony of
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
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 Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $200,000, as proposed.
5. The properties relied upon by Complainant’s and Respondent’s appraisers in performing their appraisals were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property. The six properties were located within the subject block to 10 blocks of the subject. 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, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability. The adjustments made by each appraiser to account for various items of difference between the subject and the comparables were reasonable and appropriate for this appraisal problem.
6. The fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2005, is $300,400 based upon Exhibit 1, with support from Exhibit A.
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 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.
Presumptions in Appeals
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
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 presumptions in favor of the Assessor and the Board are 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.
The
presumptions of correct assessment are rebutted when substantial and persuasive
evidence is presented 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.
Complainant Fails To Prove Value of $200,000
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 (
Mr. Jenkins
failed to meet his burden of proof under the methodology by which he arrived at
the opinion of value of $200,000. 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
The Kaltenbach
appraisal recognized the inferior condition of the subject to the comparables. It valued the property in “as is” condition. A specific adjustment was made to account for
the items of deferred maintenance with the subject property. The methodology utilized by Mr. Jenkins is
not an appropriate appraisal approach.
The evidence on the record presented two reliable opinions of value, notwithstanding that Mr. Kaltenbach was not present to testify in support of his appraisal. The Hearing Officer has given consideration to both appraisals. The six different comparable properties utilized by Mr. Kaltenbach and Mr. Land provide a range of indicated values for the subject as follows (K-Kaltenbach appraisal comparable adjusted value; L-Lane appraisal comparable adjusted value): $349,800 – L; $306,500 – K; $302,400 – L; $287,800 – K; $283,300 – L; $278,000 – K.
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 $57,080.
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 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.
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 May 22, 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 22nd day of May, 2006, to: James Jenkins, 526 Purdue Avenue, University City, MO 63130, 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