STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
| MAGDY & MARY GARAS, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainants, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | )
) ) |
Appeal No. 15-13286
Appeal No. 15-13287 Appeal No. 15-13288 |
| )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Appeal No. 15-13289
Appeal No. 15-13292 Appeal No. 15-13293 Appeal No. 15-13294 Appeal No. 15-13295 Appeal No. 15-13296 Appeal No. 15-13297 Appeal No. 15-13298 |
|
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) regarding the above appeals are AFFIRMED. The evidentiary hearings in these cases were scheduled for 9:30 a.m., July 18, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building in Clayton, Missouri. Complainants Magdy and Mary Garas (Complainants) failed to appear at the evidentiary hearings. Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by Counsel Steven Robson. Complainants Magdy & Mary Garas (Complainants) failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of the BOE.
ISSUE
The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2015.
SUMMARY
The relevant identification information, true market values (TMV) set by Respondent and by the BOE, and the TMV proposed by Complainants are as follows:
| Appeal No. | Parcel Locator No. | Address | TMV set by Respondent | TMV set by BOE | TMV proposed by Complainants |
| 15-13286 | 19H110532 | 6310 S. Rosbury
Clayton, MO |
$599,900 | $599,900 | $500,000 |
| 15-13287 | 19J130401 | 7507 Wellington Way
Clayton, MO |
$589,400 | $589,400 | $517,000 |
| 15-13288 | 18J441184 | 7312 Amherst
University City, MO |
$216,000 | $216,000 | $190,000 |
| 15-13289 | 18J541459 | 7035 Amherst
University City, MO |
$220,000 | $220,000 | $200,000 |
| 15-13292 | 18J411374 | 7434-36 Delmar
University City, MO |
$204,500 | $204,500 | $180,000 |
| 15-13293 | 18J430041 | 7445 Delmar
University City, MO |
$172,000 | $172,000 | $150,000 |
| 15-13294 | 18J421494 | 7347 Delmar Blvd.
University City, Mo |
$209,800 | $205,000 | $184,000 |
| 15-13295 | 18K630350 | 7741 Delmar
St. Louis, MO |
$216,500 | $210,000 | $190,000 |
| 15-13296 | 17H410386 | 6710 Julian
University City, MO |
$61,100 | $61,100 | $53,000 |
| 15-13297 | 16K122323 | 1335 Coolidge
University City, MO |
$51,000 | $51,000 | $49,000 |
| 15-13298 | 18J631671 | 846 Pennsylvania
University City, MO |
$220,200 | $220,200 | $180,000 |
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction over these appeals is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the BOE.
- The subject properties are identified and described in the table, above.
- By Order, these cases were initially set for Evidentiary Hearings scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, July 14, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri. The Order informed the parties that the hearings for each appeal would run consecutively on the scheduled day with a brief recess for lunch until all of the appeals were heard. The Order informed Complainants that if they could not attend the Evidentiary Hearing and needed a continuance a request must be made in writing and filed with the Commission no later than five days before the hearing date. Complainants did not file any request for a continuance. Complainants did not appear at the Evidentiary Hearings.
- The evidentiary hearings in these appeals were not held as scheduled because Complainants did not appear and did not request a continuance. Respondent appeared by Counsel Steven Robson, who announced ready for trial. At approximately 9:50 a.m., after providing Complainants a grace period for arrival, the Senior Hearing Officer conducted a conference call between Complainants and Counsel for Respondent to determine whether Complainants intended to appear at the hearings. During the conference call, Complainant Magdy Garas (Mr. Garas) stated that Complainants would not be attending the Evidentiary Hearings. Initially, Mr. Garas stated that he had not received notice of the hearings, but then stated that he had received notice of the hearings. The Senior Hearing Officer asked Mr. Garas and Counsel for Respondent if the hearings could be rescheduled for July 18, 2016, starting at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Garas and Counsel for Respondent verbally agreed to reschedule the hearings for July 18, 2016, starting at 9:30 a.m.
- On July 18, 2016, the evidentiary hearings in these appeals were not held as re-scheduled because Complainants did not appear. Complainants did not notify the Senior Hearing Officer or Counsel for Respondent that they would not be appearing at the rescheduled hearings. At approximately 10:00 a.m., after providing Complainants a grace period for arrival, the Senior Hearing Officer opened the record and recited the essential information in the appeals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Jurisdiction
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear these appeals and to correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement. The Senior 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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 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). In order to prevail, complainants must rebut the presumption of correct assessment by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on the tax day at issue. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. In an appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer still bears the burden of proof because the taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the Complainant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 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, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).
Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of the BOE valuations. Therefore the BOE valuations are AFFIRMED.
ORDER
The assessed valuations for the subject properties as determined by the BOE for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED. The assessed values for the subject properties for tax years 2015 and 2016 are set as follows:
| Appeal No. | Parcel Locator No. | Address | TMV set by BOE | Assessed Value 2015-2016 |
| 15-13286 | 19H110532 | 6310 S. Rosbury
Clayton, MO |
$599,900 | $113,980 |
| 15-13287 | 19J130401 | 7507 Wellington Way
Clayton, MO |
$589,400 | $111,990 |
| 15-13288 | 18J441184 | 7312 Amherst
University City, MO |
$216,000 | $41,040 |
| 15-13289 | 18J541459 | 7035 Amherst
University City, MO |
$220,000 | $41,800 |
| 15-13292 | 18J411374 | 7434-36 Delmar
University City, MO |
$204,500 | $38,860 |
| 15-13293 | 18J430041 | 7445 Delmar
University City, MO |
$172,000 | $32,680 |
| 15-13294 | 18J421494 | 7347 Delmar Blvd.
University City, Mo |
$205,000 | $38,950 |
| 15-13295 | 18K630350 | 7741 Delmar
St. Louis, MO |
$210,000 | $39,900 |
| 15-13296 | 17H410386 | 6710 Julian
University City, MO |
$61,100 | $11,610 |
| 15-13297 | 16K122323 | 1335 Coolidge
University City, MO |
$51,000 | $9,690 |
| 15-13298 | 18J631671 | 846 Pennsylvania
University City, MO |
$220,200 | $41,840 |
Complainants may file with the Commission an application for review of this Decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service. 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, 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. 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 Section 139.031.8, RSMo 2000, as amended.
Any Finding of Fact that is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision that is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed or sent by U.S. Mail on this 16th day of August, 2016 to:
Magdy and Mary Garas, Complainants, 7147 Delmar Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63130
Steven Robson, Attorney for Respondent, srobson@stlouisco.com
Jake Zimmerman, Assessor/Respondent, rkoch@stlouisco.com
St. Louis County Collector’s Office, mdevore@stlouisco.com
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
P.O. Box 146
301 W. High Street, Room 840
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 FAX