State Tax
Commission of Missouri
RAY-CARROLL COUNTY GRAIN GROWERS, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. )
Appeal Number 04-48000
)
WANDA WITTHAR, ASSESSOR, )
CARROLL COUNTY, MISSOURI )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The true
value in money of the subject property on January 1, 2004, was $3,000,000 (assessed
value $960,000).
ISSUE
The issue in
this case is the true value in money of an upright concrete grain elevator and
fertilizer warehouse.
SUMMARY
On November
1, 2005, an evidentiary hearing was held before senior hearing officer Luann
Johnson in the Saline County Courthouse, Marshall, Missouri. For convenience of hearing and because of
some similarity in evidence and witnesses, said appeal was combined with
Appeals No. 04-82000 through 04-82005, Ray-Carroll County Grain Growers v. Kent
Wollard, Assessor, Ray County, Missouri, and Appeal No. 04-85000, Ray-Carroll
County Grain Growers v. Margaret Pond, Assessor, Saline County, Missouri. Complainant appeared by counsel, Wayne
Tenenbaum. Respondents Pond and Witthar
appeared by counsel, Cathy Dean.
Respondent Wollard appeared by counsel, Jim Thompson. A combined transcript was created. However, because each grain elevator is different
and is located in a different county, separate decisions are written.
The subject
property is classified as “commercial” real property and is assessed at 32% of
its fair market value, or true value in money. The subject property was initialed valued by the Assessor at
$4,425,470 (assessed value $1,416,150).
Complainant proposes a value of $3,200,000 (assessed value
$1,024,000). Respondent proposes a value
of $4,030,000 (assessed value $1,289,600).
The hearing officer finds that Respondent’s sales approach to value is
the best indicator of market value and therefore sets value at $3,000,000
(assessed value $960,000).
EXHIBITS
The following Exhibits were
introduced into evidence:
Complainant’s Exhibits
Exhibit A-48,
Appraisal Report, Dennis E. Vogan (Carroll County)
Exhibit B-48,
Written Direct Testimony, Dennis E. Vogan (Carroll County)
Exhibit A-82,
Appraisal Report, Dennis E. Vogan (Ray County)
Exhibit B-82,
Written Direct Testimony, Dennis E. Vogan (Ray County)
Exhibit A-85,
Appraisal Report, Dennis E. Vogan (Saline County)
Exhibit B-85,
Written Direct Testimony, Dennis E. Vogan (Saline County)
Respondents’ Exhibits
Exhibit 1, Appraisal Report of Alan Schmook (Saline
County)
Exhibit 2, Appraisal Report of Alan Schmook (Carroll
County)
Exhibit 3, Appraisal Report of Alan Schmook (Ray County)
Exhibit 4, Audited Financial Statements of Farmers Grain
Terminal, LLC (1999, 2000)
Exhibit 5, Audited Financial Statements of Farmers Grain
Terminal, LLC (2000, 2001)
Exhibit 6, Audited Financial Statements of Farmers Grain
Terminal, LLC (2001, 2002)
Exhibit 7, Audited Financial Statements of Farmers Grain
Terminal, LLC (2002, 2003)
Exhibit 8, Audited Financial Statements of Farmers Grain
Terminal, LLC (2003, 2004)
Exhibit 9, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 1999
Exhibit 10, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 2000
Exhibit 11, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 2001
Exhibit 12, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 2002
Exhibit 13, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 2003
Exhibit 14, Ray-Carroll County Grain Consolidated
Year-to-Date Area Boxscore 2004
Exhibit 15, Farmers Grain Terminal, LLC, Request for
Financing
Exhibit 16, Operating Agreement of Farmers Grain Terminal
LLC 2003
Exhibit 17, Closing Documents, Loan request 2004,
obtained 2005
Exhibit 18, Farmers Grain Terminal LLC, Minutes of
12/17/04 & Farmers Grain
Terminal Grain Storage Addition Economics
Exhibit 19, Farmers Grain Terminal, LLC, Resolution to
Borrow
Exhibit 20, Ray-Carroll County Grain Growers, Inc.
Property, Plant &
Equipment
Summary, 9-1-03 through 8-31-04
Exhibit 21, Bin Chart Ray-Carroll Elevator, Richmond, MO
Exhibit 22, Ray-Carroll Elevator Warehouse Diagram,
Corner of Main and E. Lincoln St.
Exhibit 23, Ray-Carroll Elevator Warehouse Diagram, Lane
and Front Streets
Exhibit 24, Ray-Carroll Elevator Warehouse Diagram, E.
Main and E. Third Streets
Exhibit 25, Ray-Carroll Elevator Warehouse Diagram,
Approximately One Mile East
of Carrollton on
Highway 24
Exhibit 26, Farmers Grain Terminal Warehouse Diagram and
Bin Chart for Slater,
Kansas City
Southern Railroad and Highway 240
Exhibit 27, Warranty Deed and Construction Information,
Ray-Carroll Grain
Growers,
Carrollton, MO
Exhibit 28, Hardin 110 Shuttle Train Loader Economics
Exhibit 29, 1-16-98 Scope of Work & Specifications
for Facility Expansion,
Ray-Carroll
Grain Growers, Hardin, MO, First Expansion
Exhibit 30, 3-21-01
Scope of Work & Specifications for Facility Expansion,
Ray-Carroll
Grain Growers, Hardin, MO, Second Expansion
Exhibit 31, Various Quitclaim Deeds and Other Conveyances
to Ray-Carroll Grain
Growers, Inc.
Exhibit 32, Mike Nordwald E-Mail Regarding Patronage
Payments
Exhibit 33, Farm
Credit Services Documents
Exhibit 34, Written Direct Testimony of Alan Schmook
(Carroll County)
Exhibit 35, Written Direct Testimony of Alan Schmook
(Saline County)
Exhibit 36, Written Direct Testimony of Alan Schmook (Ray
County)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is
proper. Complainant timely appealed to
the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Carroll County Board of
Equalization.
2. The subject property, identified as
parcel 147035000002, is a 146 acre tract improved with an 860,000 bushel slip
form upright concrete grain elevator built in 1995. The subject property is further improved
with (1) approximately 4,550 feet of railroad track which can accommodate up to
75 rail cars; (2) a 10,000 square foot metal frame building on a concrete
foundation containing an office/warehouse ; (3) a 1,840 square foot truck dump
shed consisting of a drive-thru building with metal paneling on the walls and
roof and twin dump systems with a gravity flow load-out spout inside the truck
bay; (4) a fuel station with a 30,000 gallon propane storage tank on concrete
piers equipped with the necessary plumbing and pumping equipment for load in
and load out purposes; (5) an anhydrous ammonia facility with a 1997 Trinity 30
gallon tank and a 1976 Trinity 30,000 gallon tank; (6) a bulk fertilizer
facility consisting of (a) a 3,952 square food wood frame construction building
having storage for 1,300 tons of dry bulk fertilizer and served by a 38 foot stainless
steel leg rated at 110 TPH and (b) a 4,464 square foot wood frame construction
building with wood and vinyl siding used for storage and loading; and (7) five
liquid fertilizer tanks. Ex. 2, pgs. 29– 31; Ex. A-48, pgs. 50-53.
3. The existence of the shuttle train
capability on the property has a significant impact on value. Large grain terminals with shuttle trains are
able to accommodate larger and faster shipments due to the ability to load unit
trains. This increases the value of each
bushel through the reduction of overhead expense from the handling and shipping
of grain. Ex. 2, pgs. 22-24.
4. The physical characteristics of the
storage capability also impacts value because it impacts the speed at which the
shuttle trains can be loaded. The best
grain elevators can load 100-110 rail cars in under 15 hours. Tr.
9-11. It takes between 360,000 and
370,000 bushels to load a 100-car unit. Tr. 14.
Upright concrete elevators are more efficient and better suited for
storage and movement of grain than flat storage units or ground piles. Tr. 11,
13,16.
5. Volume,
commonly referred to as thru-put, also impacts value. The largest source of income to a terminal is
the income per bushel of grain sold or the total grain margin. Ex. 2,
pg. 77, Tr. 41. The subject property
has a thru-put ratio of 3.80 while other similar facilities have ratios of
2.63, 1.52 and 10.58.
Cost Approach
6. The
replacement cost new of the improvements is between $6,023,000 and $6,234,783. Ex.
A-48, pg. 54; Ex. 2, pg. 47. The
correct replacement cost new for the subject improvements is $6,023,000 as
proposed by Complainant.
7. The estimated life expectancy of the
subject improvements is 60 years. The
improvements were 9 years old on the tax day, indicating accrued physical and
functional depreciation of 15%. Ex. A-48, pg. 55. The depreciated value of the improvements is
$5,119,550. There appears to be some
economic obsolescence with the subject property but, Complainant’s calculation
of external obsolescence is not based upon any commonly accepted methodology
for determining said obsolescence and thus is can be given no weight.
8. Land sales indicate a range of value
between $1,170 per acre and $6,833 per acre.
Ex. 2, pg. 46. The correct land value is $75,000 for the 30
acres which compose the main site ($2,500 per acre) and $174,000 for the 116
acres of excess land ($1,500 per acre), or $249,000. Ex.
A-48, pg. 53. While the sales would
support both appraisers’ opinion of value, the hearing officer finds that the
excess land is of lesser value.
9. The cost approach is not considered to
be the more reliable indicator of value for the subject property inasmuch as it
is not capable of adequately measuring the impact of thru-put on value.
Income Approach
10. Both
appraisers calculated value under the income approach. The subject property is not an investment
property and the use of the questionable application of the income approach can
be demonstrated from Complainant’s appraisal report.
Complainant’s
appraiser used the income and expense statements “in the development of a
projected income statement for the grain operations only.” Ex. A-48,
pg. 57. Based upon this
reconstruction, Complainant’s appraiser calculated value for the grain elevator
at $2,712,060 at a 17.33% capitalization rate.
He then added in his opinion of the depreciated value of the fertilizer
buildings based upon his cost approach. Ex. A-48, pg. 62. Given that Complainant’s appraiser had
Complainant’s income and expense statements, the question becomes why he would
choose to ignore the income derived from the fertilizer warehouse. Obviously the answer is because the
fertilizer warehouse was not generating an income in and of itself, it was
merely reselling a product - albeit for a profit. The distinction between what the fertilizer
warehouse does and what the grain elevator does is virtually non-existent.
No market
rent exists for either facility and, thus, an income approach is not a reliable
indicator of the market value for subject property.
Sales Approach
11. No similar
sales were found in Missouri, but sales of similar grain elevators were found
in neighbouring states. Based upon the
sales, Complainant’s appraiser determined a value of the subject property of
$3,280,000, which included $100,000 of value attributable to the locomotive and
office furniture – arguably not real property.
Ex. A-48, pg. 94. On the other hand, Respondent’s appraiser
determined a value under the sales comparison approach of $3,000,000 based upon
determination of overall value per bushel; value per bushel for upright
concrete elevators; value per bushel for elevators with shuttle train access;
and value calculated based upon put-thru.
Ex. 2, pgs. 76-78. While both appraisers arrived at essentially
the same value under the sales approach, Respondent’s concise treatment
supports the accuracy of the value. Respondent’s
appraiser used the upper range of value to account for the additional
improvements to the property.
Market
Value
12. The sales
approach represents the best indicator of value for the subject property. The correct value for the subject property on
January 1, 2004, was $3,000,000.
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 (Mo. App. 1990).
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 (Mo. 2005).
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 (Mo. banc 1978).
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 Kansas City v.
State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App.1991).
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 (Mo. 1959).
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 (Mo. App. 1975).
Cost Approach
The cost
approach may be based on either reproduction cost or replacement cost. The reproduction cost, or cost of
construction, is a determination of the cost of constructing an exact duplicate
of an improved property using the same materials and construction
standards. The replacement cost is an
estimate of the cost of constructing a building with the same utility as the
building being appraised but with modern materials and according to current
standards, design and layout.
The cost
approach is most appropriate when the property being valued has been recently
improved with structures that conform to the highest and best use of the
property or when the property has unique or specialized improvements for which
there are no comparables in the market.
While
reproduction cost is the best indicator of value for newer properties where the
actual costs of construction are available, replacement cost may be more
appropriate for older properties. Snider
v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d, 341, 347 (Mo.
2005) (citations omitted).
Income Approach
The income
approach determines value by estimating the present worth of what an owner will
likely receive in the future as income from the property. The income approach is based on an evaluation
of what a willing buyer would pay to realize the income stream that could be
obtained from the property when devoted to its highest and best use.
When
applying the income approach to valuing business property for tax purposes, it
is not proper to consider income derived from the business and personal
property; only income derived from the land and improvements should be
considered. This approach is most appropriate
in valuing investment-type properties and is reliable when rental income,
operating expenses and capitalization rates can reasonably be estimated from
existing market conditions. The initial step in applying the income approach is
to find comparable rentals and make adjustments for any differences. Snider
v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d, 341, 347 (Mo.
2005) (citations omitted).
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 (Mo.
2005) (citations omitted).
Depreciation
The three
principal methods for estimating depreciation are (1) the market extraction
method; (2) the age-life method; and (3) the breakdown method. Market extraction and age-life calculations
are the primary methods used by most appraisers to estimate the total
depreciation in a property. The
breakdown method is a more comprehensive method that identifies specific
elements of depreciation and treats each element separately. It enumerates the components of total
depreciation, i.e., physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and
external obsolescence.
The market
extraction and age-life methods tend to deal with the whole property and are
easier to understand and apply. The
elements of depreciation are implicit, not explicit. Both are limited in that they assume lump-sum
depreciation from all causes can be expressed in an overall estimate, do not
always distinguish between short-lived and long-lived items, and rely on
general forecasts of effective age and remaining economic life. The age-life method is further limited in that
it typically reflects a straight-line pattern of depreciation.
Regardless
of the method applied, the appraiser must ensure that the final estimate of
depreciation reflects the loss in value from all causes and that no form of
depreciation has been considered more than once. Double charges for depreciation may produce
inappropriately low value indications in the cost approach. . .
The concepts of economic life,
effective age, and remaining economic life expectancy consider all elements of
depreciation in one overall calculation.
Therefore, the effective age estimate considers not only physical wear
and tear but also any loss in value for functional and external
considerations. This type of analysis is
characteristic of the market extraction and age-life depreciation methods. However, the age-life method can be modified
to reflect the presence of any known
items of curable physical depreciation or incurable deterioration in
short-lived building components.
When estimating physical
deterioration in the breakdown method, the most important age-life concepts are
(1) useful life; (2) actual age; and (3) remaining useful life. The use of these terms in the breakdown
method relates to the separation of physical depreciation from functional and
external obsolescence. Economic life
considers all three components of depreciation in one age-life estimate,
whereas useful life considers only the depreciation of the physical components
of a property. A building’s useful life
would probably be longer than the economic life of the same building. In spite of that difference, the application
of useful life in the breakdown method and economic life in the market
extraction and age-life methods should yield the same approximate estimate of
total depreciation. The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th
Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2001, pgs. 383-385.
Actual Age
Actual age, which is sometimes called
historical age or chronological age, is the number of years that have elapsed
since building construction was completed.
Actual age serves two purposes in depreciation analysis. First, it is the initial element analyzed in
the estimation of effective age. Second,
in the application of the breakdown method, it is fundamental to the age-life
analysis needed to estimate physical deterioration in the long-lived and short
lived components of an improvement. The
Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th Edition, Appraisal Institute,
2001, pg. 385.
Effective Age
Effective age is the age indicated by
the condition and utility of a structure and is based on an appraiser’s
judgment and interpretation of market perceptions. The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th
Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2001, pg. 385.
Physical Depreciation
Physical deterioration is the wear
and tear from regular use and the impact of the elements. The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th
Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2001, pg. 363.
Economic Obsolescence/External
Obsolescence
Economic
obsolescence, also called external obsolescence, is a term of art within the
appraisal industry and “is the impairment of desirability or useful life
arising from economic forces, such as changes in highest and best use and
legislative enactments that restrict or impair property rights and changes in
supply and demand relationships. It is
sometimes referred to as locational obsolescence.” Economic obsolescence is generally not
curable. Property Assessment
Valuation, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1977, p. 160.
External
obsolescence is a temporary or permanent impairment of the utility or
salability of an improvement or property due to negative influences outside the
property. The Appraisal of Real
Estate, 12th Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2001, pg. 363.
Functional Obsolescence
Functional
obsolescence is a term of art within the appraisal industry and is the
impairment of functional capacity or efficiency and is a loss in value brought
about by such factors as overcapacity, inadequacy, and changes in the art that
affects the property item itself or its relation with other items composing a
larger property. It is the inability of
a structure to perform adequately the function for which it is currently
employed. Functional obsolescence may be
either curable or incurable. Property
Assessment Valuation, International Association of Assessing Officers,
1977, p. 159, 170.
Functional
obsolescence is a flaw in the structure, materials, or design that diminishes
the function, utility and value of the improvement. The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th
Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2001, pg. 363.
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 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino
Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).
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 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607
(Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).
ORDER
The assessed
value determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization, is
SET ASIDE. The Commission sets market
value of the subject property at $3,000,000 (assessed value $960,000). The Clerk is hereby ordered to place the foregoing
new value on the books for tax year 2004.
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 Carroll 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
10, 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 10th day of March, 2006, to: Wayne Tenenbaum, 4707 W. 135th
Street, Suite 240, Leawood, KS 66224, Attorney for Complainant; Cathy Dean, 700
W. 47th Street, Suite 1000, Kansas City, MO 64112, Attorney for Respondent; Wanda
Witthar, Assessor, 8 S. Main, Suite 4, Carrollton, MO 64633; Peggy McGaugh,
Clerk, 8 S. Main, Suite 2, Carrollton, MO 64633; Alta O’Neal, Treasurer &
ex officio Collector, 8 S. Main, Suite 2, Carrollton, MO 64633.
_______________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator