State Tax Commission of
DELMAR FISHER, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 07-77505
)
DEAN DOHRMAN, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Pettis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE. Hearing Officer finds presumptions of correct assessment rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $93,960, assessed value of $16,266(Residential: $71,300 – $13,547 assessed; Agricultural: $22,660 –$2,719 assessed.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Jeff Mittlehauser.
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, 2007.
SUMMARY
Complainant
appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Pettis County
Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject
property. According to the BOE Decision,
the Assessor determined an appraised value of $100,920 - $78,260 – Residential
and $22,660 – Agricultural, assessed values of $14,869 and $2,719. Complainant proposed a value of $63,710, assessed
value of $12,105 for the residential property. The valuation of the agricultural property at
$22,660 was not challenged. A hearing was conducted on November 29, 2007, at
the Pettis 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
Mr. Fisher offered into evidence a document of valuation data, which was marked for purposes of identification as Exhibit A. Exhibit A consisted of the following pages:
1. Copy of Board of Equalization Decision Letter with notations made by taxpayer;
2 – 5. Copy of newspaper articles relating to home values, with notations made by taxpayer;
6 – 8. Six photographs of property located approximately 1/8th of a mile from the subject house;
9 – 11. Six photographs of the interior of the subject house showing various condition problems;
12. Copy of Notice of Change in Assessed Value, dated 6/6/07, with notations made by taxpayer;
13. Copy of information provided by Assessor on Reassessment and the appeal process, with notations made by taxpayer;
14. Copy of Notice of Change in Assessed Value, dated 6/20/07, with notations made by taxpayer;
15 – 22. Copy of Property Record Card on Subject Property prior to corrections made by the Assessor.
Counsel for
Respondent objected to pages 2 – 5 on the ground that information on national
housing trends is irrelevant to the valuation of an individual home in
Mr. Fisher testified in his own behalf and gave his opinion of value for the residential portion of his property as $63,710. He arrived at this value by determining that for some of his neighbors their assessments had increased 10 – 15% over the 2005 valuations by the Assessor. Therefore, the Complainant valued his property as of January 1, 2007, by increasing the 2005-06 value of $55,400 by 15% - $8,310.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent testified in support of his valuation of the residential portion of the subject property at $71,300 as supported by Exhibit 1 – Summary Report of Estimated Value. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Pettis County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to the date of hearing, and Complainant has no plans to make any new construction and improvement to the property before December 31, 2007.
4. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, to be $63,710, as proposed.
5. Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of $78,260 and establish the value of the subject (1 acre improved residential lot), as of January 1, 2007, to be $71,300.
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.
Presumptions In Appeals
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 valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.
Notwithstanding
the provision of Section 138.431.3, RSMo – “There shall be no presumption that
the assessor’s valuation is correct,” – 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 (
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer, or respondent when advocating a value different than that determined by the Board, presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
Complainant’s evidence, as discussed below, failed to reach the level of substantial and persuasive. Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment was not rebutted by Complainant. However, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment of the residential portion of Complainant’s property and establish the fair market value of the residential property.
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 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 both 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; Exhibit 1:3.
Methods
of Valuation
Proper
methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the
Commission. It is within the purview of
the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a
given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18
S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (
The method for
valuation used by Complainant was not an accepted approach for the valuation of
real property for ad valorem tax purposes in the State of
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 (
The owner of
property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.
Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970). The owner’s opinion is without probative
value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or
an improper foundation. Shelby County
R-4
The critical and
fatal flaw in this reasoning is, there is no evidence to establish that the
value set for the 2005-06 assessment of $55,400 actually was representative of
the true value in money (fair market
value) of the property on January 1, 2005.
Second, there is no evidence that established that a 15% increase in
value was appropriate to establish the fair market value as of January 1,
2007. In short, making this type of
calculation to arrive at the value of the property is not appropriate under the
decisions of the courts of
Respondent’s
Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, supra. In this instance, the Board set the value for the residential property at $78,260. Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence of a value of $71,300. The presumption of correct assessment was rebutted and the lower value established. The valuation was based upon the Vanguard costing system, with land value established from three sales of property comparable to the subject’s one acre.
ORDER
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained
by the Board of Equalization for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $93,960, assessed value of $16,266 (Residential: $71,300, assessed value - $13,547; Agricultural: $22,660 – assessed value - $2,719).
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 and an order to the Collector to release and disburse the impounded taxes. §139.031.3 RSMo. 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 Pettis 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 10, 2007.
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 10th day of December, 2007, to: Delmar Fisher, 11690 Stokley Road, LaMonte, MO 65337, Complainant; Jeff Mittelhauser, Prosecuting Attorney, Pettis County Courthouse, 415 S. Ohio, Sedalia, MO 65301, Attorney for Respondent; Dean Dohrman, Assessor, Pettis County Courthouse, 415 S. Ohio, Sedalia, MO 65301; Pam Doane, Clerk, Pettis County Courthouse, 415 S. Ohio, Sedalia, MO 65301; Robert Leftwich, Collector, Pettis County Courthouse, 415 S. Ohio, Sedalia, MO 65301.
____________________________
Barbara Heller, Legal Coordinator