State Tax Commission of Missouri
DONALD MEAD & SUSAN CAMPBELL, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 05-79011
)
LISA POPE, ASSESSOR, )
PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The decision of the Board of Equalization, setting value at $199,000 (assessed value $37,810) is SUSTAINED.
ISSUE
The issues in this case are the true market value of residential real property and discrimination.
SUMMARY
The subject property is a residence which was originally valued by the assessor at $199,000 (assessed value $37,810). Upon appeal, the Board of Equalization affirmed said value. Complainants appeal asserting a value of $178,000 (assessed value $33,820). An evidentiary hearing was held on December 15, 2005, in the Platte County Courthouse before hearing officer Luann Johnson. The parties appeared pro se.
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Complainants’ Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Photograph
Exhibit 2 – Assessment Information – 2003
Exhibit 3 – Assessment Information – 2005
Respondent’s Exhibit
Exhibit A – Appraisal Report
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction is proper. Complainants timely filed their appeal from the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is a 1.77 acre
tract improved with a 1,758 square foot ranch-style home over a full finished
basement built in 2000-2001. The home
has two attached garages at street level and one garage in the basement. It also has four bedrooms and three and
one-half baths. It has a wood deck, a
concrete patio and one fireplace. The
property is identified as parcel number 13-6.0-23-100-001-019-000, more
commonly known as 26 Pine View Road,
The subject neighborhood is bounded on the south by Pine View, on the north by E Highway, on the west by Highway 371 and one the east by Oil Well Road. The neighborhood is rural with stable but slow growth. All necessary services are available within a ten mile radius. The property has a convenient highway access to 371, I-29 and I-435. Ex. A.
3. Respondent’s appraiser found sales of three similar homes,
with similar highway influence, which sold for $253,030, $188,950 and
$210,000. Respondent’s appraiser
adjusted for size of lot, style of home, age, square footage, basement finish,
number of garages and site improvements.
After adjustments, these properties indicated a range of value for the
subject property between $212,850 and $252,530.
Gross adjustments ranged from 10.5% to 20.7%. Based upon these sales, Respondent’s
appraiser determined a market value for the subject property of $214,000 on
4. Complainants assert that their house is overvalued because Respondent’s value does not take into consideration the negative influence of highway noise on their home value. Ex. 1. Complainants have not supplied us with a paired sales analysis which would demonstrate the extent of the adverse impact which the noise would have on the fair market value of their home. Complainants’ opinion of value is based upon their premise that homes in their neighborhood are generally undervalued and that the average of said undervaluation is $21,000. Tr. 7, Ex. 3. Subtracting $21,000 from the County’s value of $199,000, results in their opinion of $178,000 for their home.
Complainants’ calculations are based solely upon homes that had sold in the neighborhood within the last five years. The source of Complainants’ sales information is unknown and unverified. Most of the homes were at least 10 years older than the subject property. Complainants’ determination of value for their home is not based upon any recognized appraisal methodology and is not substantial and persuasive to prove value.
5. Complainants’ claim of discrimination is based upon their belief that other homes in the neighborhood are being assessed at a lower percentage of true value in money than their home. Specifically, Complainants assert:
a. 18 Pine View was purchased for $166,320 in 2002 but the county shows its 2005 value as $156,583 indicating that it is only being assessed at 17.90% of market value;
b. 23 Pine View was purchased for $190,000 in 2001 but the county shows its 2005 value at $164,133 indicating that it is only being assessed at 16.40% of market value;
c. 24 Pine View was purchased for $150,000 in 2001 but the county shows its 2005 value as $143,448 indicating that it is only being assessed at 18.10% of market value;
d. 27 Pine View was purchased for $255,000 in 2000 but the county shows its 2005 value as $208,790 indicating that it is only being assessed at 15.50% of market value;
e. 19 Montague was purchased for $210,000 in 2002 but the county shows its 2005 value as $192,529 indicating that it is only being assessed at 17.40% of market value;
In contrast, Complainants assert that their home was purchased in 2001 for $202,000 and is now being valued by the county at $199,017, indicating an assessment of 18.70% of market value.
Again, we are not
given the source of Complainants’ sales figures. Complainants also did not determine if other
homes in the neighborhood, which had not sold in the last five years, were
assessed at a lesser percentage of market value than the subject property or
the sales which Complainants utilized. Finally,
Complainants presented no evidence indicating that a statistically significant
number of residential properties in
6. No evidence was presented which
suggested that any new construction or property improvements occurred between
7. The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005, and
January 1, 2006, is $199,000, as determined by the assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization.
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 (
Discrimination
Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove:
1. The level of assessment for the subject property in 2005. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office.
2. The average level of assessment for
residential property in
3. That the disparity between (1) and
(2) is grossly excessive. Savage
v. State Tax Commission of
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 Complainants had to (1) establish the market value of their property
and (2) establish the market value of a representative sample of other
residential properties in
While
we cannot be sure that Complainants’ neighbors’ homes are undervalued, even if
we accept this as true, we cannot find that Complainants are being taxed at a
higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of
other residential taxpayers in the county.
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 Platte 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: Donald Mead, 26 Pine View Road, Platte City, MO 64079, Complainant; John Shank, 9800 N.W. Polo, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64153, Attorney for Respondent; Lisa Pope, Assessor; 415 Third Street, P.O. Box 20, Platte City, MO 64079; Sandra Krohne, Clerk, 415 Third, P.O. Box 30, Platte City, MO 64079; Donna Nash, Collector; 409 Third, P.O. Box 40, Platte City, MO 64079.
_______________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator