State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

JACK ROACH,                                              )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 07-78000

)         

KEVIN RASMUSSEN, ASSESSOR, )

PHELPS COUNTY, MISSOURI,                   )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Phelps 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 is set at $178,700, assessed value of $33,950, residential value.

Complainant appeared in person.

Respondent appeared in person and by counsel Lance B. Thurman. 

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, the decision of the Phelps County Board of Equalization.  The Assessor determined an appraised value of $178,700, assessed value of $33,950, as residential property.  The Board sustained the value.  Complainant proposed a value of $156,200, assessed value of $29,678. A hearing was conducted on December 12, 2007, at the Phelps County Courthouse, Rolla, Missouri. 

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainant’s Evidence

The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of the Complainant.

            Exhibit 1 – Tax Statement 2006

            Exhibit 2 – Notice of Change of Assessment 2007

            Exhibit 3 – Board of Equalization 2007

            Exhibit 4 – Tax Statement 2007

            Exhibit 5 – Letter to the State Tax Commission

            All Exhibits were received into evidence.

            Testimony of Jack Roach

Respondent’s Evidence

The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

Exhibit A – Sales Letters

Exhibit B – Appraisal of Subject Property

All Exhibits were received into evidence.

Testimony of Stan Stevens

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.         Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Phelps County Board of Equalization.

2.         The subject property is located at 1106 Grandsir Avenue, Rolla, Missouri.  The property is identified by parcel number: 71-09-1.0-12-001-008-008.00.  The property consists of a .25 acre lot improved by a one-story brick and vinyl, single-family home structure of in good condition.  The structure was built in 2002.  The residence has a total of six rooms and contains 1,764 square feet of living area.  The basement is approximately 1,764 square feet of unfinished area.  There is a two-car attached garage.  There was no listing or sale of the property noted within three years prior to the tax date of January 1, 2007.

3.         Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, to be $156,200.

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 County Board of Equalization.  Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958).

The presumptions of correct assessment are rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.  Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2005).  Citing to Hermel, supra; and Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

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 (Mo. banc 1993).  It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.  Hermel, supra.

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; Exhibit 1, p. 2.

Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).  The sales comparison approach is generally the best suited approach for the appraisal of owner occupied residences.  When there is adequate and sound market data, the sales comparison approach provides the best evidence of value for an appraisal problem of this nature.

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 (Mo. 1959).  Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.  The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief.  Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).  See also, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).

The Complainant has failed to meet the burden of proof in the present appeal.  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 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).

The Complainant introduced into evidence his 2007 and 2006 Tax Statements (Exhibits 1 and 4), his Notice of Change of Assessment (Exhibit 2), his appeal to the Board of Equalization (Exhibit 3) and a letter (Exhibit 5).  None of his exhibits or testimony provided evidence of true value of the subject property.

The Respondent presented the testimony of Stan Stevens which included an appraisal report (Exhibit B) by Mr. Stevens.  Mr. Stevens, an employee of the Phelps County Assessor’s Office, performed used the cost approach and sales comparison approach to determine value.  Under the cost approach, Mr. Stevens determined the value of the subject property to be $184,500. Under the sales approach, Mr. Stevens determined the value of the subject property to be $179,000.  Mr. Stevens compared the subject property to four properties that sold between February 15, 2006 and August 6, 2007.  One of the comparable properties was located next door to the subject property.  The comparable property is nearly identical in all aspects to the subject property.  Mr. Stevens made a $10,000 adjustment for the effective age of the comparable property, assuming that the property was prepared for real estate showing.  The property sold in August 2007 for $195,000.   Two other comparable properties were within one mile of the subject and had similar square footage and lot size.  The properties sold from $175,900 and $178,500 in 2006. 

Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish true value in money.  Accordingly, the valuations as determined by the Board must be affirmed.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Phelps County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $33,950.

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 Phelps 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 MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

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:    Jack Roach, 1106 Grandsir Avenue, Rolla, MO 65401, Complainant; Lance Thurman, 901 N. Pine Street, 4th Floor, Rolla, MO 65402, Attorney for Respondent; Kevin Rasmussen, Assessor, 200 N. Main St, Rolla, MO 65401; Carol Bennett, Clerk, 200 N. Main St, Rolla, MO 65401; David R Haas, Collector, 200 N. Main St, Rolla, MO 65401.

 

 

____________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator