State Tax Commission of Missouri

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert=s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. St. Louis County v. Boatmen=s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).

The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact. Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer. A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused her discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

The Hearing Officer properly addressed the matter of the four (4) inch encroachment on the subject property by the neighboring property. See, Finding of Fact 3 & 4. The Hearing Officer concluded that the negative adjustment by Respondent’s appraiser of $27,000 to account for this negative influence was appropriate. There is no evidence on the record to refute this finding. There is no basis to support Complainant’s claim of taxation without representation. The Hearing Officer did not err in her determinations in this case.

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.

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.

SO ORDERED May 16, 2006.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

The decision of the Board of Equalization, setting value at $27,500 (assessed value $5,230) is SET ASIDE. Value is set at $25,000 (assessed value $4,750) as proposed by Respondent at hearing.

ISSUE

The issue in this case is the true value in money of a residential property.

SUMMARY

The subject property is a residential property which was originally valued by the assessor at $55,000 (assessed value $10,450). Upon appeal, the Board of Equalization reduced value to $27,500 (assessed value $5,230). Complainant appealed asserting a value of $3,500 (assessed value $665). At hearing, Respondent proposed a value of $25,000 (assessed value $4,750). An evidentiary hearing was held on January 17, 2006, in the Jackson County Courthouse before senior hearing officer Luann Johnson. Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared by counsel, William Snyder.

EXHIBITS

The following exhibits were entered into the record:

Complainant’s Exhibits

Exhibit A – Letter from State Farm

Respondent’s Exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report

Exhibit 2 - Photographs

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jurisdiction is proper. Complainant timely filed her appeal from the decision of the Jackson County Board of Equalization.

2. The subject property is a 6,400 square foot lot improved with a 2,192 square foot two-story single-family residence with an actual age of 108 years and an effective age of 45 years. The property is identified as parcel number 29-810-13-19-00-0-00.000, more commonly known as 2744 Holmes, Kansas City, Missouri.

3. The subject property is of average quality construction and is in poor condition for the neighborhood. In addition to maintenance issues, the neighboring home has settled and is encroaching four inches over Complainant’s property line. The roof of the neighboring house is touching, or close to touching the roof of the subject property. State Farm Insurance has refused to renew Complainant’s homeowner’s policy because the neighboring home represents a fire hazard for Complainant’s property. Complainant has not sought a new insurance provider. Respondent’s appraiser examined the home and confirmed Complainants’ reports of encroachment.

4. Respondent’s appraiser found sales of three similar properties which sold for $109,950, $75,000 and $100,000. The comparables were within a mile of the subject property. The comparable sales sold between August of 2004 and December of 2005. The homes were between 95 years old and 106 years old. Respondent’s appraiser adjusted for lot size, square footage, quality of construction, condition and site improvements. He made a negative $27,000 functional utility adjustment to each comparable to account for the encroachment from the neighboring property. After adjustments, these properties indicated a range of value for the subject property between $24,954 and $26,768. Based upon these sales, Respondent’s appraiser determined a market value for the subject property of $25,000 on January 1, 2005.

5. Complainant presented no appraisal report but testified that she thought the property should be valued at $3,500. Complainant’s evidence is not substantial and persuasive to establish market value for the subject property.

6. No evidence was presented which suggested that any new construction or property improvements occurred between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006. Therefore the value determined for tax year 2005 shall also be the value determined for tax year 2006.

8. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005, and

January 1, 2006 is $25,000 (assessed value $4,750), as proposed by Respondent at hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Highest and Best Use

True value in money is the fair market value of the property on the valuation date, and is a function of its highest and best use, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future. Aspenhof Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Mo. App. 1990).

It is true that property can only be valued according to a use to which the property is readily available. But this does not mean that in order for a specific use to be the highest and best use for calculating the property’s true value in money, that particular use must be available to anyone deciding to purchase the property. . . .A determination of the true value in money cannot reject the property’s highest and best use and value the property at a lesser economic use of the property. Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d. 341, 348-349 (Mo. 2005).

True Value in Money

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 purchased by one who is desiring 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 (Mo. banc 1993). It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).

Taxpayer has Burden of Proof

In Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003), the court of appeals stated:

There is no longer an automatic presumption regarding the correctness of an assessor's valuation. Section 138.431.3. This statutory change from the previous situation in which the assessor's valuation was presumed to be correct does not mean that there is now a presumption in favor of taxpayer. The taxpayer in a Commission tax appeal still bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was improperly classified or valued. Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).

In Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), the court of appeals described the taxpayer's burden as follows:

Taxpayers were the moving parties seeking affirmative relief, and as such, they bore the burden of proving the vital elements of their case, i.e., the assessments were "unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.” Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo.1959); Westwood P'ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161[8] (Mo. App. 2003); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§710, 726. This is true regardless of the existence or non-existence of the challenged presumption. As the Supreme Court of Missouri explained, "even were we to hold that it [the presumption] has been overcome, the burden of proof on the facts and inferences would still remain on petitioner, for it is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.” Cupples, 329 S.W.2d at 702[16]. See also 84 C.J.S. Taxation §710, which states: "Even where there is no presumption in favor of the assessor's ruling, if no evidence is offered in support of the complaint, the reviewing board is justified in fixing the valuation complained of in the amount assessed by the assessor."
To prevail, Taxpayers had to "present an opinion of market value and then ... present substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on tax day." Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Mo. App. 2002).

Substantial and Persuasive Evidence

Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, i.e., evidence favoring facts which are such that reasonable men may differ as to whether it established them, and from which the Commission can reasonably decide an appeal on the factual issues. Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

Comparable Sales Approach

The comparable sales approach uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties. Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character. This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data is available to make a comparative analysis. Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 347-348 (Mo. 2005). (citations omitted).

Experts

An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The state tax commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W.2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961); Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).

The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The hearing officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).

DISCUSSION

In order to prevail on a claim of overvaluation, Complainant must present an opinion of value and then present substantial and persuasive evidence tending to demonstrate that her opinion of value is supported by market evidence. Complainant has failed to meet this burden of proof.

ORDER

The assessed value determined by the Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE. The Clerk is hereby ordered to place a new value of $25,000 (assessed value $4,750) on the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed 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.

If an application for review of a hearing officer 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 Jackson 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 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 29, 2006.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

_____________________________________

Luann Johnson

Senior Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 29^th day of March, 2006, to: Mary Kletchka, 2744 Holmes, Kansas City, MO 64109, Complainant; William Snyder, Deputy County Counselor, Jackson County Courthouse, 415 E. 12th Street, Room 200, Kansas City, MO 64106, Attorney for Respondent; Michael O’Flaherty, Director of Assessment; Mary Jo Spino, Clerk; Mike Pendergast, Director of Collections, Jackson County Courthouse, 415 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; and Bob Ensminger, Real Estate Records, City of Kansas City, 1st Floor, City Hall, 414 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.

_______________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator