State Tax Commission of Missouri
SAMUEL MAITLAND, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Numbers 05-73007 & 05-73008
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decisions of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for each of the subject properties for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be $15,800, (vacant and unused agricultural land assessed at fair market value) assessed value of $1,900.
Complainant appeared Pro Se.
Respondent appeared Pro Se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine whether the subject properties should be valued at fair market value and assessed as vacant and unused agricultural land, or whether the subject properties should be assessed on the basis of agricultural land grade.
SUMMARY
Complainant
appeals, on the ground of misgraded agricultural land, the decision of the
Morgan County Board of Equalization, which sustained the assessment of the
subject properties. The Assessor
determined the true value in money for each property to be $15,800 and assessed
the property at $1,900 as vacant and unused agricultural property. Complainant proposed the properties be valued
and assessed under the provisions of 12 CSR 30-4.010(2)(A) as forest land and
contested that the properties were vacant and unused. A hearing was conducted on June 13, 2006, at
the Morgan County Courthouse,
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 and described the two tracts of land and his use of the land. Exhibit A – copy of topographical map with the two properties under appeal outlined in pink was received into evidence. It was Complainant’s opinion that the two tracts should be assessed as forest land under the Commission’s Rule on Agricultural Land Productive Values both tracts being used for hunting.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent testified as to his assessment of the properties. Assessor believe the land qualified as vacant and unused agricultural land and therefore he valued it at fair market value, taking into consideration the properties are land locked and do not have utilities or a well. Exhibit 1 – an aerial photograph of the area of the subject properties, with the subject properties outlined in black, with identifying parcel numbers was 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 Morgan County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject properties are located in
rural
3. The properties are covered by forest of mostly oaks and hickory. There is no pasture on the properties. The properties are not part of an active farm. The two Quarter-Quarter Sections are vacant and unused agricultural land and must be valued under §137.017.4, at their fair market values.
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, 348-349 (
The present appeals present a question of law as to whether the subject tracts are to be assessed as vacant and unused agricultural land at market value or whether the tracts are to be assessed as forest land at agricultural land grade # 7. Mr. Maitland’s claim is that his property is used for hunting and therefore comes within the purview of the provisions of 12 CSR 30-4.010(2)(A), which reads as follows:
“
The provisions of this Rule have been applied by the Commission for the valuing of forest land that is part of an active farm. It is not applicable to vacant and unused land. The legislature has made specific provision for the valuing of vacant and unused agricultural land in §137.017(4), RSMo. Subsection (4) requires that “For general property reassessment purposes, the true value in money of vacant and unused land which is classified as agricultural and horticultural property under subsection 3 of section 137.016 shall be its fair market value.” Emphasis added.
The statutory provision supersedes any claim such as propounded by Complainant that the Commission Rule dictates the subject tracts be given an agricultural land grade value. The valuation of forest land that is part of a farm falls under the purview of the Rule. Land such as the Complainant’s properties which are tracks of free standing forest land, used only for hunting must be valued as a matter of law at their fair market values, as the Assessor properly did.
ORDER
The assessed
valuations for the subject properties as determined by the Assessor and
sustained by the Board of Equalization for
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-73007 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $1,900.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 05-73008 for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $1,900.
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 these appeals 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 these appeals. 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 August 9, 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 6th day of August, 2006, to: Samuel Maitland, 17504 E. Courtney-Atherton Rd., Independence, MO 64058, Complainant; Marvin Opie, Prosecuting Attorney, Morgan County Justice Center, Versailles, MO 65084, Attorney for Respondent; Robert Raines, Assessor, 100 East Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Cathy Daniels, Clerk, 100 East Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Clark Hunter, Collector, P.O. Box 315, Versailles, MO 65084.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator