State Tax Commission of Missouri
HERBERT LESLIE, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-54501
)
BETTY HARMISON, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The decision of the assessor, affirmed by the Board of Equalization, setting value at $42,270 (assessed value $8,030) is SUSTAINED.
ISSUE
The issue in this case is the true market value of a lake front lot.
SUMMARY
The subject property is a lake front lot which was originally valued by the assessor at $42,270 (assessed value $8.030). Upon appeal, the Board of Equalization affirmed said value. Complainant appeals asserting a value of $26,500 (assessed value $5,040). An evidentiary hearing was held on December 20, 2005, in the Daviess County Courthouse before senior hearing officer Luann Johnson. The parties appeared pro se.
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Complainant’s Exhibits
Exhibit A –
Handwritten Paper Showing Price Paid for the
Appraised Value Each Year Since Purchase
Exhibit B – Letter from Don Moore
Exhibit C – Statements on Appraised Value
Exhibit D – Note from Assessor’s Office Regarding 2003 Increase
Exhibit
E – Photographs,
Exhibit
F – Photographs,
Respondent’s Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report
Exhibit 2 – Property Record Card, Sales/Sales Letters/Locator Map
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction is proper. Complainant timely filed his appeal from the decision of the Daviess County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is an 18,700
square foot lake front lot on deep water.
It has an excellent view of
3. Respondent’s appraiser found sales of four similar lots which
sold for $80,000, $56,000, $75,000 and $55,000.
Respondent’s appraiser adjusted for depth of water and site
improvements. After adjustments, these
properties indicated a range of value for the subject property between $59,500
and $80,000. Based upon these sales,
Respondent’s appraiser determined a market value for the subject property of
$71,000 on
4. Complainant testified that his neighbor had sold the adjacent lot for $32,000 in August of 2004. He further testified that the adjacent lot had a building on it which he valued at $8,000, leading him to believe that his lot had a value of $26,500. Complainant presented no other market sales to support his opinion of value. Complainant’s evidence is not substantial and persuasive to demonstrate that his property has been overvalued.
5. No evidence was presented which suggested that any new construction or property improvements occurred between January 1, 2005, and the hearing date. Therefore the value determined for tax year 2005 shall also be the value determined for tax year 2006.
6. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005, and
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 (
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 (
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 (
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
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 (
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 (
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 (
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 (
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 (
DISCUSSION
In order to prevail, Complainant must present
an opinion of value and then present substantial and persuasive evidence
tending to demonstrate that his opinion of value is supported by market
evidence. Complainant has failed to meet
this burden of proof. One sale is
usually not sufficient to establish market value, especially when it is
rebutted by numerous other sales. The
overwhelming evidence suggests that Complainant’s property would sell for at least
$42,270 as determined by the assessor and affirmed by the Board of
Equalization.
ORDER
The assessed value determined by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.
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 Daviess 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 23, 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 23rd day of March, 2006, to: Herbert Leslie, 4508 Willis, Independence, MO 64055, Complainant; Julia Filley, Prosecuting Attorney, 102 N. Main, Gallatin, MO 64640, Attorney for Respondent; Betty Harmison, Assessor, 102 N. Main, Second Floor, Gallatin, MO 64640; Linda Steward, Clerk, 102 N. Main, Second Floor, Gallatin, MO 64640; Rita Rains, Treasurer and ex officio Collector, 102 N. Main, Gallatin, MO 64640.
_______________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator