State Tax Commission of
ROBERT AND HELEN GOEBEL, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 07-57007
)
BILL OVERSCHMIDT, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $500, residential, assessed value of $95.
Complainants appeared in person.
Respondent appeared in person and by counsel, Mark Vincent.
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 Franklin County
Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property
made by the Assessor. The Assessor determined
an appraised value of $1,120, assessed value of $213, as residential property. Complainant
proposed a value of $500, assessed value of $95. A hearing was conducted on March 7, 2008, at
the Franklin County Assessor’s Office,
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant Robert Goebel testified. Complainant Goebel testified that it was his opinion that his property was valued at $500. Respondent stipulated to the value.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at
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
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.
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 (
Complainant stated his opinion of value for the subject property was $500.00. Attorney for the Respondent stated that he would stipulate to that value.
ORDER
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization
for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $95.
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 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 Franklin 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 14, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 14th day of March, 2008, to: Robert Goebel, 1808 Shiloh Valley Drive, Chesterfield, MO 63005, Complainant; Mark Vincent, Franklin County Counselor, P.O. Box 439, Union, MO 63084, Attorney for Respondent; Bill Overschmidt, Assessor, 400 E. Locust, Suite 105A, Union, MO 63084; Debbie Door, Clerk, Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 201, Union, MO 63084; Linda Emmons, Collector; Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 103, Union, MO 63084.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator