State
Tax Commission of Missouri
DIANE E. MATTHEW, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 06-67500
)
LAURA POPE, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2006 to be $30,470, assessed value of $4,550.
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 the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination, the assessment made by the Assessor. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $30,470 - $12,780 – Residential and $17,690 - Agricultural, assessed value of $4,550 - $2,430 – Residential and $2,120 - Agricultural.
A hearing was
conducted on November 28, 2006, at the McDonald 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 her own behalf and offered into evidence documents addressing the issues in the appeal. Exhibit A was received into evidence. Exhibit A consisted of the following documents.
1. Typed statement addressing Complainant’s claim of discrimination.
2. Notice of Change in Assessed Value on subject property for 2005 and 2006.
3. Sheet with three photographs (a) gate at entrance to property, (b) 14 x 76 1985 Redman mobile home, and (3) 8 x 10 utility shed.
4. Notice of Change in Assessment from Benton County Assessor on a mobile home.
5.
State of
6. Sheet with four photographs (a) old abandoned home, front view, (b) old abandoned home back view, (c) side view of old barn/shed, and (d) rear view of old barn/shed.
7. Copies of 2000 - 2006 real property tax bills on subject.
8. Property Record Card on Subject property.
9. Copies of 1999 – 2006 Complainant’s personal property tax bills.
10.
Copy of August 4, 2003 Tax Report on subject property
from
11. Property Record Card on unknown parcel in Section 18, Township 20, Range 29. Note: subject is in Section 24, Township 22, Range 31.
12. Letter to Commission, dated 7/28/06, filed with Complaint for Review of Assessment, with sheet containing three photographs, also shown in item 6 above.
Complainant only appealed the valuation on the residential portion of her property – a half acre and the structures thereon and the assessment of an abandoned house, and two barns, one of which Complainant asserts was destroyed a few years ago and the other being of no contributory value to the property.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent testified in her own behalf. Exhibit 1 consisting of an aerial photograph of the subject property and copies of assessment sheets on the subject for the years 2000 through 2006 was received into evidence.
The Hearing Officer issued his Order November 29, 2006, giving Complainant opportunity to permit an inspection of the property under appeal to verify and determine if a revised valuation of the residential portion of the property was warranted. Complainant had until and including Friday, December 8, 2006, to advise the Assessor that she would permit an inspection of her property. Respondent was to advise the Hearing Officer by December 11, 2006, if an inspection had been granted. If an inspection was granted, Respondent was to file with the Hearing Officer her revised valuation based upon the number, type and condition of structures observed during the inspection and provide a copy to Complainant.
Respondent did not advise the Hearing Officer that Complainant had agreed to an inspection and so therefore did not file a revised valuation. The Hearing Officer concludes no inspection was permitted and no revised valuation was performed. Therefore, it is appropriate to proceed to render a Decision and Order based on the evidence on the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. The Notice of Change in Assessment sent to Complainant gave the last date to appeal to the Board as 7/18/2006. Complainant was informed on 7/17/06 when she requested a hearing before the Board that the Board had met the week before, therefore the Commission accepted the appeal.
2. The subject property is located at
3. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005 for the residential portion of her property.
4. No evidence was presented to establish
that the Assessor had intentionally assessed the residential portion of the
property at a value greater than nineteen (19%) of its fair market value. No evidence was presented to establish the
average residential assessment ratio for
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.
Presumption in Appeal
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 (
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 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’s 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 (
In the present case, Complainant did not provide an opinion of value as to the half-acre residential portion of her property. In cases like this where the taxpayer has no idea of the value of the property being appealed, the Hearing Officer has no basis upon which to conclude that the Assessor has not properly valued the property. None of the Complainant’s evidence provided a basis upon which the Hearing Officer could arrive at the fair market value of the residential portion of the subject property.
The crux of Complainant’s claim of overvaluation related to the condition of an old vacant house and an old unused barn. Complainant also challenged the value placed on the mobile home due to its age and condition. Simply permitting the Assessor to inspect the residential portion of the property could have easily provided verification of the condition of the unused house and barn, as well as the general condition of the mobile home.
The failure of Complainant to permit the Assessor to inspect so as to properly record information for the assessment of the property raises a serious question in the mind of the Hearing Officer as to the veracity of Complainant’s assertions. The aerial photograph of Complainant’s property appears to show more than just the mobile home, a storage shed, the vacant house and old barn. It appears there may have been as many as seven different structures on Complainant’s property when the photograph was taken a few years ago. If some of those structures have been removed, a visual inspection from the ground would establish that fact.
Complainant failed to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor stands.
ORDER
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2006 is set at $4,550.
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 McDonald 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 December 20, 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 20th day of December 2006, to: Diane Matthew, 5654 Cowan Ridge Road, Powell, MO 65730, Complainant; Steve Geeding, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 566, Pineville, MO 64856, Attorney for Respondent; Laura Pope, Assessor, P.O. Box 726, Pineville, MO 64856; Joye Helm, Clerk, P.O. Box 665, Pineville, MO 64856; Cloteel Atkins, Collector, P.O. Box 725, Pineville, MO 64856.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator