State Tax Commission of
STANLEY & KATHLEEN PLATTS, )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 07-12721
)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE. Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct assessment not rebutted by Complainant’s evidence, but rebutted by Respondent’s evidence. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $490,000, residential assessed value of $93,100.
Complainant, Stanley Platts, appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
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
Complainants
appeal, 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 $507,500, assessed value of $96,420, as residential property. The Board reduced the value to $479,400,
assessed value of $91,090. Complainants
proposed a value of $416,300, assessed value of $79,100, in their Complaint for
Review of Assessment. A hearing was
conducted on July 8, 2008, at the
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainants’ Evidence
Mr. Platts
testified on behalf of Complaints. He
gave the owners’ opinion of value to be $338,200. The opinion of value was determined by taking
the square feet of living area of the subject (3,560) times $95.00. The $95
figure was derived from the sale of a neighboring property (
Complainant offered
into evidence as Exhibit A, a copy of the real estate listing sheet on the
property at
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent
placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Arthur Froeckmann, Missouri State
Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser for
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
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.
4. Complainants’ 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 $416,300, as proposed in the Complaint or $338,200 as testified to at hearing.
5. The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property. The four properties were located within the subject’s neighborhood. Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2007. The sale properties were similar to the subject in style, quality of construction, age, condition, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability. Exhibit 1.
6. The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable. All adjustments were appropriate to bring the comparables in line with the subject for purposes of the appraisal problem. The net adjustments ranged from -6.2% to 4.5%. The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $501,800, $484,500, $487,500 and $492,700, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $490,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $137.65 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $156.56, $155.04, $127.73 and $159.43. Exhibit 1.
7. Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $490,000. Exhibit 1.
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.
Presumption In Appeals
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
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 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 are 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 both 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.
Methods
of Valuation
Proper
methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the
Commission. It is within the purview of
the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a
given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18
S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (
The methodology
employed by Mr. Platts of multiplying the living area by a figure derived form
the sale of a single neighboring property is a technique for appraisal of
property for ad valorem tax purposes that the Commission
recognizes. It has never been accepted
by any court in this state. A single
sale of a property does not establish the market value for another property.
Mr. Froeckmann employed the well recognized and generally accepted approach to value utilized when valuing owner occupied homes – the sales comparison approach. In most instances, given adequate sales data, this is the superior method for valuing a property such as the subject of this appeal.
Complainants Fail To Meet Burden of Proof
In order to
prevail, Complainants 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. 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.” See, Westwood Partnership v.
Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (
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 (
The owner of
property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market
value. Rigali v.
The testimony of
Mr. Platts established that his opinion of value was based upon a single sale
of a property and his calculation of a per square foot of living area sale
price. This is not a proper foundation
for an opinion of value. It does not
contain the proper elements of comparison to three or more sales of properties
which have been properly adjusted to account for differences between the sale
properties and the property being appraised.
In short, it is not an appraisal of property to multiply the unadjusted
per square foot sale price of a single property times the living area of the
property being valued. Therefore, the
opinion of value tendered by Mr. Platts has no probative weight. The opinion of value is rejected since the
basis for it has insufficient support for a proper approach to valuing real
property.
Respondent Proves Value
Respondent, when
advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or
a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of
proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as
required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, supra. The appraisal developed by Mr. Froeckmann met
the required standard to establish the fair market value of the subject as of
January 1, 2007 to be $490,000.
Accordingly, the value set by the Board was rebutted.
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 $93,100.
Complainants 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. Said application must be in writing addressed
to the State Tax Commission of Missouri,
Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.
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.
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 August 4, 2008.
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 4th day of
August, 2008, to: Stanley Platts,
________________________________
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer