State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

SHEILA FOLEY,                                            )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 07-12159

)         

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,   )

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,               )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Case dismissed.  Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.  True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $230,900, residential assessed value of $43,870.

Complainant represented by Counsel, Angela Redden-Jansen, Arnold, Missouri.

Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Robert Fox.

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 St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.  The Assessor determined an appraised value of $274,700, assessed value of $52,190, as residential property.  The Board reduced the value to $230,900, assessed value of $43,879.  Complainant proposed a value of $187,900, assessed value of $35,700, in her Complaint for Review of Assessment.  Case was set for hearing at 1:40, p.m., Wednesday, October 22, 2008, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.         The subject property is located at 6901 Columbia Avenue, University City, Missouri.  The property is identified by locator number 18J640392.[1]

3.         No request for continuance was filed with the Commission.  Complainant or Complainant’s Counsel did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.

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.[2]  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.[3]  

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[4]  The presumption of correct assessment is 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.[5]  Complainant did not present any evidence to establish the true value in money of the subject property.  Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment by the Board stands.

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.[6]  There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission appeal still bears the burden of proof.  The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.   Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”   The taxpayer must prove the fair market value asserted.[7]  Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[8]  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.[9]  No evidence was presented by Complainant, therefore the burden of proof was not met.

Dismissal of Appeal

            The Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal.[10]  The Order, dated September 12, 2008, setting case for evidentiary hearing stated: “If you do not appear at the hearing and no request for continuance is made, your appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”  Case is dismissed for failure to comply with the Commission order and appear at hearing, for failure of prosecution and for failure to present prima facie evidence for the relief sought.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $43,870.

Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing of such decision.  The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.  Documents to establish prima facie the value of $187,900 as proposed by Complainant must be filed with an application for review.  Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service. 

  Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.[11]  Failure to file documents to establish prima facie the value of $187,900 as proposed by Complainant will result in summary denial. 

The Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of 139.031.8 RSMo.  If no Application for Review is filed, the Collector is ordered to disburse the disputed taxes in accordance with the assessment set by this Decision and Order.

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 October 30, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

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 30th  day of October, 2008, to:     Angela Redden-Jansen, 1544 Jeffco Blvd., Arnold, MO 63010, Attorney for Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Attorney for Respondent; Philip A. Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

 

____________________________

Barbara Heller, Legal Coordinator

 

 


[1] Complaint for Review of Assessment.

 

[2] Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo. 

 

[3] Section 138.431.4, RSMo.

[4] 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).

 

[5] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). 

 

[6] Hermel, supra, at 897.

 

[7] See, 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).  Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).

 

[8] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.  

 

[9] Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975). 

[10] 12 CSR 30-3.050(3). 

 

[11] Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.