State Tax Commission of
PLAZA TERRACE BLDG 6, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-30152
)
MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, )
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Jackson 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 years 2005 and 2006 is set at $42,540, commercial assessed value of $13,613.
Complainant
appeared by Counsel, Richard D. Dvorak,
Respondent appeared by Counsel, William Snyder, Deputy County Counselor.
Case 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.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jackson County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $42,540, assessed value of $13,613, as commercial property. Complainant proposed a value of $30,000, assessed value of $9,600 on its Complaint for Review of Assessment. Case was decided on Respondent’s waiver of cross-examination and submission of the case on written direct testimony filed by Complainant. See, Order on Submission of Appeals, issued January 23, 2007.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant filed the written direct testimony of John Blatz, Director of Multifamily Management for Cohen Esrey Real Estate Services. No objection was filed to the written direct testimony. It is identified as Exhibit A and received into the record.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent filed no exhibits or written direct testimony in this appeal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Jackson County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at
3. No written direct testimony, other than Exhibit A, or exhibits were filed pursuant to Commission Orders by Complainant. Complainant was precluded from offering any exhibits or other testimony at an evidentiary hearing in this appeal. 12 CSR 30-3.060; Order, dtd 1/23/07.
4. Respondent was precluded from offering any exhibits or testimony at an evidentiary hearing in this appeal. 12 CSR 30-3.060; Order, dtd 1/23/07.
5. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor or the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $30,000.
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 Appeal
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
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.
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
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 each 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.
Complainant Fails to Meet 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 (
Complainant failed to rebut the presumptions of correct assessment and establish the true value in money of the property under appeal. The only evidence of value presented on behalf of Complainant was the testimony of John Blatz that the value of the Plaza Terrace parcels combined was $1,408,000 based upon the income stream. The same testimony was offered in Appeal 05-30153 (Carl D. Recknor v. O’Flaherty). No evidence was presented to establish that Mr. Blatz possessed sufficient education, training and experience in the appraisal of real property for ad valorem tax appeals to qualify as an expert. No evidence was presented which established any information and data as to the “income stream” of the property in this appeal. No market data was presented which would provide support for a valuation of this property combined with the property in Appeal 05-30153 of $1,408,000. Without supporting documentation establishing and demonstrating fair market value based upon a recognized methodology for determining an indicated value the opinion of Mr. Blatz has no probative benefit. No weight could be given to his opinion of value.
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 2005 and 2006 is set at $13,613.
Complainant 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 St. Louis 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.
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 March 8, 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 8th day of March, 2007, to: Richard Dvorak, 7111 W. 98th Terrace, Suite 140, Overland Park, KS 66212, Attorney for Complainant; William Snyder, Deputy County Counselor, Jackson County Courthouse, 415 E. 12th Street, Room 200, Kansas City, MO 64106, Attorney for Respondent; Michael O’Flaherty, Director of Assessment; Mary Jo Spino, Clerk; Christopher Williams, Director of Collections, Jackson County Courthouse, 415 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; and Bob Ensminger, Real Estate Records, City of Kansas City, 1st Floor, City Hall, 414 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator