State Tax Commission of
ROBERT L. NEELEY, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 07-52002
)
CHRISTOPHER ESTES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds presumptions of correct assessment not rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2007 and 2008 is set at $46,000, residential assessed value of $8,740.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, James W. Gallaher IV, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
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 Cole County Board
of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of
$46,000, assessed value of $8,740, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $15,000 on
his Complaint for Review of Assessment and a value of $20,300, assessed value
of $3,860, at the evidentiary hearing. A
hearing was conducted on November 27, 2007, at the Cole County Courthouse
Annex,
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Mr. Neeley offered into evidence Exhibit A. Exhibit A consisted of the following documents (1) copy of 2007 Notice of Real Property Assessed Value; (2) copies of the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Cole County Real Estate Tax Bills on the subject property; (3) a copy of a definition from Section 700.010.5 RSMo of a manufactured home; (4) calculations from NADA pricing guide for a 1990 Buckingham 26 x 56 manufactured home; and (5) copy of a newspaper article on the ruling by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard G. Callahan in the school foundation formula case. Exhibit A was received into evidence.
Mr. Neely offered his opinion of value for the manufactured home on the subject property to be $20,300 based upon his calculations from the NADA pricing guide in Exhibit A.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent offered into
evidence two exhibits. Exhibit 1 was an
appraisal report of Melissa L. Bonecutter, Missouri State Certified Residential
Real Estate Appraiser. Exhibit 2 was a
copy of the CAMA cost and sales report from the Assessor’s office on the mass
valuation of the subject property. Ms.
Bonecutter testified in support of her appraisal of the subject property. Exhibit 1 concluded a value of $52,500 under
the cost approach and $55,000 under the sales comparison approach. Exhibit 2 produced the indicated value of
$46,000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at 6127
Hwy 54 West,
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to the date of hearing. There was no evidence of planed new construction and improvement prior to December 31, 2007.
4. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, to be $20,300.
5. The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser in performing her appraisal and the properties shown in Exhibit 2 were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property. Each sale property consisted of a tract of land improved by a manufactured home. The properties were located within 8 to 12 miles of the subject. Location of the properties in closer proximity to the subject is not as critical in the present appraisal problem, given that the property being valued is real estate improved by a manufactured home. Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2007. The sale properties were similar to the subject in style, quality of construction, age, condition, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability. Each sale was appropriately adjusted to account for the differences between each sale property and the subject property.
6. Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $46,000. Respondent’s appraisal was accepted only to sustain the original assessment made by the Assessor and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value. Exhibit 1:13.
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
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 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.
The
evidence presented by Complainant failed to rebut the presumption of correct
assessment.
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 (
Implicit in this definition are 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 1:5.
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 (
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
Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof. Mr. Neeley’s opinion of fair market value was only a value for the manufactured home. His opinion and evidence presented nothing relative to the value for the subject land. Furthermore, Mr. Neeley was valuing the manufactured home as if it were to be sold or traded in and removed from the property. The proper method of valuation in this appeal is to value the real property – land and improvements (manufactured home) – as it existed on January 1, 2007, in a hypothetical sale of the real estate – land and home.
The property being valued is land and improvements and the supposed sale for purposes of valuation on January 1, 2007, is a sale of the manufactured home on site, not as a trade-in or sale for removal from the property. Complainant’s opinion of value was based on an improper methodology and therefore has no probative value. The manufactured home on the subject react of land has been set on a concrete block foundation. It has been skirted and hooked up to utilities. It is in place as a dwelling unit on the land.
The appropriate
method of valuation is as developed by Exhibits 1 or 2, a sales comparison
approach to value. The appropriate
market in this instance is not a trade-in market. Nor is a sale of the manufactured home to be
removed from the land the appropriate market for valuation purposes in this
instance. Irrespective of what a
manufacture home unit might sell for to be traded in or removed from a location
as an occupied home, the evidence of sales of comparable manufactured homes on
site in
Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and to establish true value in money for the subject real estate – land as improved by the manufactured home.
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 $8,740.
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 Cole 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: Robert Neeley, 6127 Hwy. 54 West, Eugene, MO 65032, Complainant; James W. Gallaher IV, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 311 E. High, Room 300, Jefferson City, MO 65101, Attorney for Respondent; Christopher Estes, Assessor, 210 Adams Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101; Marvin Register, Clerk, Cole County Courthouse Annex, Room 201, Jefferson City, MO 65101; Larry Vincent, Collector, Cole County Courthouse Annex, Jefferson City, MO 65101.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator