State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

JOEL P. YOUNG,                                           )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 07-72501

)

JEROME OVERKAMP, ASSESSOR,            )

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MISSOURI,    )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Montgomery County Board of Equalization affirming the assessment made by the Assessor is OVERRULED.  Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct assessment by the Board is rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $72,800, assessed value of $13,830.

Complainant appeared in person.

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, the decision of the Montgomery County Board of Equalization, which affirmed the valuation of the subject property.  The Respondent determined a true value of $73,800, assessed value of $14,020, as residential property.  Complainant proposed on his Complaint for Review of Assessment an assessed value of $13,530.  A hearing was conducted on November 26, 2007, at the Montgomery County Courthouse, Montgomery City, Missouri.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant testified in his own behalf.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent placed into evidence Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the property record card including calculations for value.  Respondent testified in support of the Board’s valuation.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.         The Complainant owns approximately 27 acres located at 20 Misciagna Road, New Florence, Missouri. The parcel number is 13-1.0-11-000-000-025.001.  Improvements on the property include a one-story structure of approximately 1,254 square feet built in 1975.  The Respondent has valued the land at $32,900 and the structure at $39,900 and the property was assessed as residential.

3.         The Respondent also assessed a dock.  The dock was valued at $1,000.  The dock is on property owned by an association.  The dock was assessed as residential.

4.         The Complainant testified that he pays a fee to an association for use of a lake.  The dock is located on that lake.   The Complainant testified that the dock does not belong to him.  It was constructed by his adult children. 

5.         The Complainant testified that he does not contest the values determined by the Respondent.  He only contests being assessed for the dock.

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.

Board of Equalization Presumption

            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 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.

 

 

Ownership and Classification

            The Complainant only contests the ownership of a dock which has been assessed as residential property at a true value of $1000.  The dock is located on a lake owned by an association.  The Complainant purchased one acre of property which is not located on the lake but allows him to pay a fee to use the lake.  The Complainant testified that he did not construct the dock or purchase the dock.  He testified that his adult children constructed the dock and placed it on the lake.  The Respondent testified that members of the association told him whom they believed each of the docks belonged to. 

The Respondent must locate property and determine ownership.  “Every person owning or holding real property or tangible personal property on the first day of January, including all such property purchased on that day, shall be liable for taxes thereon during the same calendar year.” Section 137.075, RSMo. 

It has not been established that the Complainant owns the dock which was assessed.  The Complainant testified that the dock was constructed by his adult children and the dock is not on his property.

If it was established that the Complainant owned the dock, the assessment of the dock as residential would have been improper.  Residential property is “all real property improved by a structure which is used or intended to be used for residential living by human occupants, vacant land in connection with an airport, land used as a golf course, and manufactured home parks, but residential property shall not include other similar facilities used primarily for transient housing.” Section  137.016, RSMo.  The dock would not be an improvement on real property owned by the Complainant.

 

“All property in Missouri shall be classified for tax purposes as follows: Class one, real property; class two, tangible personal property; class three, intangible personal property.”  Section 137.015, RSMo.  If it was established that the Complainant owned the dock, the dock should have been assessed as tangible personal property.  Tangible personal property is defined as every tangible thing being the subject of ownership or part ownership whether animate or inanimate, other than money, and not forming part or parcel of real property as herein defined, but does not include household goods, furniture, wearing apparel and articles of personal use and adornment, as defined by the state tax commission, owned and used by a person in his home or dwelling place. 

Most tangible personal property of whatever nature and character situated in a county other than the one in which the owner resides shall be assessed in the county where the owner resides; except that, houseboats, cabin cruisers, floating boat docks, and manufactured homes, shall be assessed in the county where they are located.  Section 137.090, RSMo.   The Complainant resides in St. Charles County.  If the property is deemed to be a floating boat dock, and the owner is determined, it could be assessed as tangible personal property in Montgomery County where it is located. 

Conclusion

            Complainant met the standard of substantial and persuasive proof; therefore the presumption of correct assessment by the Board was rebutted.  It was not established that the Complainant owned the dock which was assessed. 

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $13,830.

Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the 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 Montgomery 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, Complainant 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 MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

Maureen Monaghan

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:   Joel P. Young, 519 Sunshine Brooke Drive, O’Fallon, MO   63366, Complainant; James Whiteside, Prosecuting Attorney, 211 E. Third St., Montgomery City, MO 63361, Attorney for Respondent; Jerome Overkamp, Assessor, 310 Salisbury, Suite B, Montgomery City, MO 63361; Pam Cartee, Clerk, 211 E. Third Street, Suite 205, Montgomery City, MO 63361; Anita Sullivan, Collector, 211 E. Third St., Montgomery City, MO 63361.

 

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator