State Tax Commission of
BANK OF
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 06-79011
)
LISA POPE, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER
DECISION
HOLDING
Upon review of the entire record, the Commission affirms the Hearing Officer Decision entered on August 15, 2007.
HISTORY
The Assessor determined an appraised value of $8,722,454, assessed value of $2,907,194, as commercial property. The Board affirmed the value. Complainant appealed to the State Tax Commission on the grounds of overvaluation, discrimination, and exemption and non-taxability under Sections 148.110 and 148.020, RSMo. On November 22, 2006, Complainant withdrew its claims of overvaluation and discrimination. On May 3, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Facts and requested time to file Motions for Summary Judgment. The parties requested the issue be decided on their agreed statement of facts and Motions for Summary Judgment in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. On July 9, 2007, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Suggestions in Support and a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Section 139.031 as Complainant did not pay its 2006 tax bill. On
August 15, 2007, the Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, set aside the Decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor. Complainant’s business personal property used in the operation of a data center is not subject to assessment pursuant to Bank Tax Law of 1946, Sections 148.010 to 148.110, RSMo. Further, the Hearing Officer denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
Respondent filed an Application for Review on October 12, 2007. Complainant filed a Response to Respondent’s Application for Review of Hearing Officer’s Decision on
November 16, 2007.
ISSUES
Respondent moved for review of the Hearing Officer’s Decision on the grounds:
1. Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon business personal property used in the operation of a data center is not subject to assessment pursuant to Bank Tax Law of 1946, Sections 148.010 to 148.110, RSMo, should not have been granted.
2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss based upon Complainant’s failure to pay property taxes should have been granted.
CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
Exemption:
Bank Tax Law of 1946
The Constitution of
Missouri (Article X, Section 4c) specifically allows for the substitution of
another form of taxation for the personal property of banks.
“It is the purpose and intent of the general assembly to substitute the tax provided by sections 148.010 to 148.110 for the tax on bank shares which was imposed by section 10959, RSMo 1939, and for all taxes on all tangible and intangible personal property of all banking institutions subject to the provisions of sections 148.010 to 148.110, except taxes on tangible personal property owned by the taxpayer and held for lease or rental to others and for all property taxes on the shares of such banking institutions.” Section 148.110, RSMo.
The statute’s language is clear and unambiguous. The plain and unambiguous language of a statute must be applied as written and should not be made ambiguous by administrative interpretation and thereby given a meaning which is different from that expressed in a statute's clear and unambiguous language. Blue Springs Bowl v. Spradling, 551 S.W.2d 596, 600 (Mo. banc 1977); Metro Auto Auction v. Director of Revenue, 707 S.W.2d 397, 401 (Mo. banc 1986); Wolfe Shoe Co. v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 29 (Mo banc 1988). The language of Section 148.110, RSMo exempts the personal property of banks from property tax. The only exception is set out in the statute and is taxes on tangible personal property owned by the taxpayer and held for lease or rental to others and for all property taxes on the shares of such banking institutions regards to leased and rented property. No other exception was provided for by statute.
Motion
to Dismiss
“1. Any taxpayer may protest all or any part of
any current taxes assessed against the taxpayer, except taxes collected by the
director of revenue of
Respondent argues that Complainant’s failure to pay taxes
prohibits the State Tax Commission from exercising subject matter jurisdiction
in this case. However, Complainant’s
property is exempt from property tax and therefore no property taxes were due.
The State Tax Commission will grant Motions to Dismiss
under Section 139.031, RSMo, when the Complainant’s property taxes were
delinquent and the appeal is based upon overvaluation, misclassification or
discrimination. The State Tax Commission
does not grant Motions to Dismiss when the appeal is based upon exemption as
the issue is whether or not any taxes are to be paid and there are no taxes to
be disbursed by the collector.
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 December 26, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.
Complainant represented
by Counsel, Brian T. Howes,
Respondent represented
by Counsel, John Shank,
Case heard by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
The first issue in this case is whether business personal property used in the operation of a data center owned by a banking institution is subject to assessment or exempt pursuant to the Bank Tax Law of 1946, Sections 148.010 to 148.110, RSMo.
The second issue is whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that Complainant failed to pay property taxes on or before December 31, 2006.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of exemption, the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $8,722,454, assessed value of $2,907,194, as commercial property. The Board affirmed the value.
Complainant appealed to the State Tax Commission on the grounds of overvaluation, discrimination, and exemption and non-taxability under Sections 148.110 and 148.020, RSMo. On November 22, 2006, Complainant withdrew its claims of overvaluation and discrimination. On May 3, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Facts and requested time to file Motions for Summary Judgment. The parties requested the issue be decided on their agreed statement of facts and Motions for Summary Judgment in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. Parties were given until July 9, 2007, to file their Motions for Summary Judgment with Suggestions in Support and given until August 9, 2007 to file Reply Briefs. On July 9, 2007, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Suggestions in Support and a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Section 139.031 as Complainant did not pay its 2006 tax bill. Complainant was given until August 9, 2007, to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. On July 9, 2007, Complainant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and its Memorandum in Support. On July 27, 2007, Respondent filed her Reply to Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 9, 2007, Complainant filed their Reply to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
2. On May 3, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Facts.
3. The subject property is business
personal property located at
4. The subject property is owned by Bank of America, N.A.
5. The subject property consists of data storage and related furniture, fixtures and equipment used in the operation of a data center to support general banking business including storage of data relating to the receiving of deposits, processing of checks, lending and borrowing money, investment of assets, trust department activities and other approved financial activities including transactions involving bank issued credit cards.
6. Complainant is a national banking institution
located in
7. On or about February 21, 2006, Complainant notified the Assessor that their property was not subject to assessment due to the Banking Institutions Tax.
8. On March 1, 2006, Complainant filed a 2006 Business Personal Property Tax Declaration.
9. On or about June 6, 2006, Respondent issued her notice of valuation and assessment of the business personal property.
10. The Complainant has not paid the 2006 Property Tax on the subject property.
11. Complainant appealed to the Platte County Board of Equalization.
12. On July 31, 2006, the Platte County Board of Equalization sustained the assessment made by the Assessor.
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.
Summary
Judgment
If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court shall enter summary
judgment forthwith.
Exemption:
Bank Tax Law of 1946
The Constitution of
Missouri (Article X, Section 4c) specifically allows for the substitution of
another form of taxation for the personal property of banks. The “other” form of taxation can be found in
Section 148.110, RSMo.
“It is the purpose and intent of the general assembly to substitute the tax provided by sections 148.010 to 148.110 for the tax on bank shares which was imposed by section 10959, RSMo 1939, and for all taxes on all tangible and intangible personal property of all banking institutions subject to the provisions of sections 148.010 to 148.110, except taxes on tangible personal property owned by the taxpayer and held for lease or rental to others and for all property taxes on the shares of such banking institutions.” Section 148.110, RSMo.
The statute’s language is clear and unambiguous. The plain and unambiguous language of a statute must be applied as written and should not be made ambiguous by administrative interpretation and thereby given a meaning which is different from that expressed in a statute's clear and unambiguous language. Blue Springs Bowl v. Spradling, 551 S.W.2d 596, 600 (Mo. banc 1977); Metro Auto Auction v. Director of Revenue, 707 S.W.2d 397, 401 (Mo. banc 1986); Wolfe Shoe Co. v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 29 (Mo banc 1988). The language of Section 148.110, RSMo exempts the personal property of banks from property tax. The only exception is set out in the statute and is taxes on tangible personal property owned by the taxpayer and held for lease or rental to others and for all property taxes on the shares of such banking institutions regards to leased and rented property. No other exception was provided for by statute.
Motion
to Dismiss
In 2005, an amendment to Section 139.031, RSMo became effective whereby only “current” taxes could be paid under protest. Current taxes remain current until they become delinquent taxes on January 1 of the year following the tax year in question. There is no statutory provision for the escrowing or impounding of delinquent taxes.
Statutory sections providing the tax appeal procedure must
be meticulously followed. Boyd-Richardson
Co. v. Leachman, 615 S.W.2d 46 (
The State Tax Commission will grant Motions to Dismiss when
the Complainant’s property taxes were delinquent and the appeal is based upon
overvaluation, misclassification or discrimination. The State Tax Commission does not grant
Motions to Dismiss when the appeal is based upon exemption as the issue is
whether or not any taxes are to be paid and there are no taxes to be disbursed
by the collector.
ORDER
The Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Complainant’s business personal property used in the operation of a data center is not subject to assessment pursuant to Bank Tax Law of 1946, Sections 148.010 to 148.110, RSMo.
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 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 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 September 14, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer