State Tax Commission of
WAYNE & LYNN TODD, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 05-73009
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On January 20, 2006, Senior Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor, entered his Decision and Order (Decision) modifying the assessment by the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
Complainant timely filed their Application for Review of the Decision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Upon Review
The Hearing
Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true
value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give
them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any
relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v.
Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (
The Hearing
Officer as the trier of fact may consider the
testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as he may
deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other
circumstances. The Hearing Officer is
not bound by the opinions of experts or other witnesses who testify on the
issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the testimony and
accept it in part or reject it in part. St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457
(Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865
(
The Commission
will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute
its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the
evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier
of fact. Black v.
Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957
S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial
Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D.
1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (
DECISION
A review of the
record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by
the Hearing Officer. There is competent
and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision
of the Hearing Officer. A reasonable
mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of
the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination
that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused
his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of
law in this appeal. Hermel,
Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (
Complainant’s letter setting forth her Application for Review dealt in large part with criticisms of past actions by the Assessor and allegations that the addition to the residence and two additional structures added to the valuation by the Hearing Officer decision have been assessed in prior assessment cycles. The matter of criticisms of past actions by the Assessor do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer to address and are irrelevant as to the Decision which was rendered in this appeal.
As to allegations that the residential additional and two agricultural structures had been assessed in prior assessment cycles is not born out by the evidence which the Hearing Officer had before him. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 contains the property record card on the subject property which was before the Board during the BOE hearing – 2005 assessment. That property record card does not show the existence of the residential addition (open porch and wooden deck built onto the modular home) or the two agricultural sheds (a 6 x 8 and 10 x 10). The property record – Proposed Corrections – shows these improvements.
Based upon this information the Hearing Officer properly determined the Board’s assessment should be modified. The issue was not whether the various additional structures had been on the property prior to January 1, 2005. It appears that in deed they had been. However, they had not been shown on the property record card, even after the Board hearing. Therefore, they were not being assessed. The appropriate course of action for the Hearing Officer was to correct this error in assessment.
The Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Complainant.
Complainant submitted with her application for review six documents identified as Exhibits A through F. These documents were not part of the record in the appeal before the Hearing Officer. Therefore, no error was committed in not giving consideration to them. Some of the photographs of the subject structures were received into evidence as part of Respondent’s exhibit at hearing. When filing an application for review, neither party is entitled to offer additional evidence. Therefore, no consideration can be given to Exhibits A through F. A review of these documents fails to provide any documentation which contradicts Respondent’s exhibits and the information from the property record card which established the additional structures had not been assessed in the prior assessment cycle.
ORDER
The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Order.
SO ORDERED March 9, 2006.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
_____________________________________
Sam D. Leake, Commissioner
_____________________________________
Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner
WAYNE & LYNN TODD, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-73009
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Complainant, Lynn Todd, 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, and the classification of a utility shed.
SUMMARY
Complainants
appeal, on the ground of overvaluation and misclassification, the decision of
the Morgan County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation and
changed the classification of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of
$58,300 (assessed value of $11,080, as residential property) and $36,330
(assessed value of $4,360 as agricultural property). The Board sustained the Assessor’s valuation
of the residential portion of the property, but placed the agricultural land on
at agricultural grades with a productivity value of $5,000 (assessed value
of $600). Complainants did not
challenge the agricultural valuation.
Complainant only challenged the overall valuation to the extent that
approximately 8/10 of an acre which was assessed to Complainants is owned by
the State Highway Department and challenged the classification of a 10 x 10
utility shed as residential instead of agricultural. A hearing was conducted on January 10, 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 offered into evidence Exhibit A – a copy of a deed dated April 18, 1962 in which a strip of land 75 feet wide was conveyed to the State Highway Commission; a map showing a portion of State Route WW, one page from the property record card on the subject property and two pages showing the highway department survey map for route WW. Exhibit A was received into evidence.
Ms. Todd testified that the 10 x 10 foot utility shed which had been assessed as a residential improvement was used for agricultural purposes. She also testified to identify the documents in Exhibit A and asserted that a strip of land approximately 35 by 1,000 feet owned by the highway department was being assessed as owned by Complainants.
Respondent’s
Evidence
Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 was a valuation report prepared by Respondent. Respondent agreed that the 10 x 10 utility shed should be assessed as an agricultural improvement at 12% instead of 19%. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.
Respondent testified that in preparing for the hearing in this appeal, he discovered two additional structures and an addition to the subject residence that had been omitted in his prior assessment. Exhibit 1, Proposed Corrections.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at
26840 Highway WW, Stover,
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2006.
4. Complainants’ evidence was substantial and persuasive to establish that a strip of land 35 by 1,000 feet along the subject property is owned by the state highway department and not by Complainants.
9. A reduction in the agricultural land by 35,000 square feet (1,000 x 35 = 35,000; 35,000/43,560 = .803, rounded to .80) or .80 of an acre is required to account for the portion of the property owned by the highway department assessed against Complainants. The total agricultural land is 37.4 (38.2 - .80 = 37.4), valued at $75 per acre ($75 x 37.4 = $2,805, rounded to $2,800) or $2,800.
10. The residential appraised value is $60,600, assessed value of $11,510. Exhibit 1 – Proposed Corrections.
11. The appraised value of the agricultural improvements is $2,970. Exhibit 1 – Proposed Corrections. The total agricultural appraised value is $5,770 ($2,800 – land + $2,970 – improvements), assessed value of $690 ($5,770 x .12 = $692.40, rounded to $690).
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.
Board of Equalization Presumption
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence. A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary. In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the assessment determined by the Board is accepted as correct only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s assessment is erroneous and what the correct assessment of the property should be. Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
Complainants’ evidence with regard to the 35 x 1,000 foot strip of land established that this is land that is not owned by Complainants. Under the language of the highway deed (Exhibit A) this is not an easement, but a conveyance of land. Therefore, based on the calculations made in the Findings of Fact a modification of the Board’s decision is warranted. Complainants did not otherwise challenge the valuation by the Board therefore those values established were not in dispute. The only issues were the classification of the 10 x 10 utility shed, which Respondent agreed should be classified as agricultural, and the ownership of 8/10 of an acre of land. Corrected values to account for the two additional agricultural improvements and the addition to the house were required to be added to the prior valuation made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization
for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $12,200 ($11,510 – Res + $690 = $12,200).
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 Morgan 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 January 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 January, 2006, to: Wayne Todd, 26840 Hwy. WW, Stover, MO 65078, Complainant; Marvin Opie, Prosecuting Attorney, Morgan County Justice Center, 211 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084, Attorney for Respondent; Robert Raines, Assessor, 100 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Cathy Daniels, Clerk, 100 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Clark Hunter, Collector, P.O. Box 315, Versailles, MO 65084.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator