State Tax Commission of
ROBERT JAVAUX, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 07-73000
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Appeal is dismissed. Decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor AFFIRMED.
Complainant appealed pro se.
Respondent appeared in person.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer, Maureen Monaghan.
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 and discrimination, the decision of the
Morgan County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the
subject property. The Assessor
determined an appraised value of $291,700 (assessed value of $55,420 as
residential property). The Board sustained
the value. Complainant proposed a value of $250,000 (assessed value of $47,500). Case was set for hearing at 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at the Morgan County Courthouse,
The Hearing Officer dismisses the appeal.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant did not appear at 10:00 a.m. and present any evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
2. Complainant failed to present evidence to establish fair market value.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
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
Rebutting
of Presumption of Correct Assessment
The
presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer 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. Donna Snider v.
Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., SC86181, 3/01/2005. Citing to Hermel, supra; and Cupples
Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (
Duty to Investigate
In order to
investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer has the duty
to inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding
any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment
of the property. The Hearing Officer’s
decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based
solely upon its inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based
solely upon evidence presented by the parties.
Section 138.430.2, RSMo.
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, 2007. 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 (
DECISION
Complainant failed to appear for hearing of the appeal. The Complainant was notified by the State Tax Commission of the date and time of the hearing.
ORDER
The appeal is
dismissed and 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 2007 and 2008 is set at $55,420.
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 December 21, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 21st day of December, 2007 to: Robert Javaux, 122 Lansing, Maryland Heights, MO 63043, 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; and Kathy Francis, Collector, 100 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084.
____________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator