State Tax Commission of
SHANKAR KONDA, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-10763
)
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 year 2005 to be $10,000, assessed value of $3,330.
Case submitted on documents 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, a 2000 Volvo S70 automobile 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 assessed value of $5,030, as personal property, or $15,090 appraised value. Exhibit B – Board Decision Letter. Complainant proposed a value of $10,000, assessed value of $3,330. Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing in response to the Order issued on July 21, 2006.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant filed with the Complaint for Review of Assessment the following exhibits (marked for purposes of identification by the Hearing Officer):
Exhibit A – Summary statement on the basis for owner’s opinion of value.
Exhibit B – Copy of Board of Equalization letter, dated September 1, 2005.
Exhibit C – Copy of Bill of Sale for the subject vehicle.
Exhibit D – Copy of Receipt for Cashier’s Check, dated November 27, 2004, in the amount of $10,000.
Exhibit E – Copy of 44 – Point Inspection, dated 11/23/04 on the subject vehicle.
Exhibit F – Copies of five photographs showing various items of damage to the subject vehicle.
All of Complainant’s exhibits are received into evidence.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent filed the following exhibits in response to the Commission order dated
July 21, 2006 (marked for purposes of identification by the Hearing Officer):
Exhibit 1 – N.A.D.A. (National Automobile Dealers’ Association) Official Used Car Guide Report, with Mileage Value Factor
Exhibit 2 - N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide Report, without Mileage Value Factor
Exhibit 3 – Copy
of Section 137.115, Revised Statutes of
Exhibit 4 –
Affidavit of Linda Edison, Property Tax analysis Supervisor for
All of Respondent’s exhibits are received into evidence.
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 a 2000 Volvo S70, VIN: YV1LS61J4Y2670632. The Assessor’s Account number is I00062371.
3. Subject vehicle was advertised in the classified section of a daily newspaper and was purchased in response to being advertised by Complainant on November 27, 2004, for $10,000. Exhibits A, C & D. After taking into consideration the items needing repair and the price indicated by the Kelly Blue Book, Complainant purchased the vehicle. Exhibit A.
4. At the time of purchase the car had the following items of needed repair:
a. driver side door padding hanging with a gap.
b. front bumper had three separate areas in need of body/painting work.
c. front cup holder broken.
d. leather steering wheel cover worn out and in need of replacement.
e. drive belt cracked and in need of replacement.
5. Complainant’s evidence was 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 $10,000.
6. Respondent’s witness affirmed that the vehicle was assessed using a fair market value of $12,075, assessed value of $4,030. Exhibit 4. Complainant also gives the assessed value as being $4,030. Exhibit A. The Board Decision letter gives the assessed value by the Assessor and the Board as $5,030. Exhibit B. This calculates to a fair market value of $15,090 ($5,030 x 3 = $15,090).
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.
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 presumption is 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 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 should have been placed on the property. Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
Complainant
presented evidence to establish the price paid for the vehicle thirty-five days
before the tax date. This transaction
came about as a result of the automobile being advertised in a newspaper. It is common knowledge that motor vehicles
are bought and sold day in and day out through private transactions from newspaper
advertising.
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 (
Complainant Met Burden of Proof
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 (
Complainant has met his burden of proof in this instance. 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). Mr. Konda’s opinion is based upon a sound basis, the actual sales price of the vehicle taking into account needed items of repair and the indicate price from a recognized pricing guide – Kelly Blue Book.
Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time. The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value. The actual sales price, between a willing seller, who is not obligated to sell, and a willing buyer, who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526 (App. E.D. 1993).
Respondent’s Valuation
The
Respondent properly relied upon the October 2004 – N.A.D.A. Official Used Car
Guide in making his original valuation of the Complainant’s vehicle. However, the provision of subsection 9 of Section 137.115, RSMo, gives instruction as to
the N.A.D.A. Guide being “the recommended guide of information for determining
the true value of motor vehicles described in such publication.” For purposes of the mass appraisal of motor
vehicles in
The Respondent’s exhibits only verify that the Assessor used and relied upon a valuation from the N.A.D.A. Guide.
However, once the issue of valuation moves from the mass appraisal system to an appeal to the Board, or even an informal meeting with the Assessor’s staff prior to a Board hearing, the actual purchase price must be taken into account, when the sale of the vehicle occurs at a time relevant to the tax date. In a case like this, where the taxpayer presents a copy of the receipt for the cashier’s check and the bill of sale for a purchase just 35 days prior to tax date, a relevant market transaction has been established. The fact that the two parties were brought together by a newspaper advertisement concerning the automobile being offered for sale does not render the sale to be anything less than a market transaction.
The operative words in Section 137.115.9, with regard to the N.A.D.A. Used Car Guide are “recommended guide for information for determining the true value in money of motor vehicles.” For use in the mass valuation of thousands of motor vehicles in any given county, it is the recommended guide that assessors are to use. The statute does not, however, mandate that no other value can be used. The issue is true value in money. Fair market value is established when a willing buyer and willing seller agree to a purchase price. When that is agreed to the outer limit of value has been established. See, St. Joe Minerals, supra.
The fair market value of the Complainant’s automobile as of January 1, 2005, is set at $10,000.
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 year 2005 is set at $3,330.
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 September 12, 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 12th day of September, 2006, to: Shankar Konda, 16771 Hickory Crest Drive, Ballwin, MO 63011, Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Attorney for Respondent; Philip 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