DARREN McARTHY,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.07-12775

)

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY,MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing 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 $175,000, residential assessed value of $33,250.Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor Paula J. Lemerman. Case 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 $195,200, assessed value of $37,090, as residential property.The Board reduced the value to $166,000, assessed value of $31,540.Complainant proposed a value of $125,000, assessed value of $23,750, in the Complaint for Review of Assessment.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant submitted his narrative statement on the issue of true value in money, with exhibits on November 20, 2008.[1]Mr. McArthy stated his opinion of value to be $125,000 based on his calculation of a 32% increase over value set on his property in 2003.Complainant’s exhibits filed with the Commission are as follows:

Exhibits are received into the record.No document marked by Complainant as Exhibit G was filed with the Commission, nor was any document identified as Exhibit G referenced in Exhibit P.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent filed the Appraisal Report (Exhibit 1) of Mr. Timothy Hannan, Residential Real Estate Appraiser for St. Louis County.[2]Exhibit 1 is received into evidence.Mr. Hannan arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $175,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of five properties deemed comparable to the subject property.

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.Case was set for Evidentiary Hearing by order dated July 21, 2008.Evidentiary Hearing was to be at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, August 14, 2008.On July 30, 2008, Complainant faxed to the Commission his request to be granted a continuance from the August 14^th hearing date.Mr. McArthy requested “a continuance to a date in October.”By Order issued July 31, 2008, the August 14^th hearing was cancelled and Complainant was advised the hearing would be rescheduled in October by a later Order.

3.By Order dated September 12, 2008, case was set for Evidentiary Hearing at

3:40 p.m., Wednesday, October 22, 2008.Complainant, by phone message on October 13, 2008, requested another continuance.By Order issued October 14, 2008, the Hearing Officer ordered the case submitted on documents in lieu of an evidentiary hearing.The procedure for submission of the case on documents was as follows:

“Complainant is ordered to file with the Hearing Officer, copy to Attorney for Respondent, all documents to be offered in Complainant’s case in chief to establish a true value in money (fair market value) as of January 1, 2007, the value of $125,000 for the property under appeal (Locator No. 27I440622 – 9345 Sappington Road, St. Louis, Missouri) as set forth in the Complaint for Review of Assessment.Complainant shall also provide a narrative statement setting forth the basis for his opinion of true value in money and any explanation of the documents filed as to how they establish the market value of the subject property as of 1/1/07.

Complainant’s documents and statement are to be filed on or before November 17, 2008. On or before November 17, 2008, Counsel for Respondent shall provide Complainant a copy of Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report of Timothy Hannan, previously provided to the Hearing Officer.Counsel for Respondent may also file with the Hearing Officer and Complainant a copy of any narrative statement or written direct testimony of Mr. Hannan in support of his appraisal.”

4.The subject property is located at 9345 Sappington Road, Sunset Hills, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 27L440622.The property consists of a 19,240 square foot (.44 of an acre) lot improved by a vinyl siding over frame, ranch, single-family structure of average quality construction.The house dates from around or prior to 1951 and appears to be in fair condition.There have been two additions to the original structure.The residence has a total of six rooms, which includes three bedrooms, one and half baths, and contains 1,722 square feet of living area.There is a partial unfinished basement and a detached three-car garage. The subject is located on a busy street.[3]

5.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.

6.Complainant’s 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 $125,000, as proposed.Complainant failed to present an opinion of true value in money for the property under appeal as of January 1, 2007, that was supported by an appraisal methodology recognized by the Commission and Courts of this state.

7.The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value. The five properties were located within .19 to .47 of a mile of the subject.Each sale property sold at a time relevant (5/05 – 9/06) to the tax date of January 1, 2007.The sale properties were similar to the subject in style (4 ranch, 1 story and a half), quality of construction (average), age (42 – 71 years), condition (average – good), room (5 – 7), bedroom (3) and bathroom (1.5 – 2) count, living area (1,260 – 1,886), location (suburban-busy street), site size (10,560 – 19,982 square feet) and other amenities of comparability.

8.The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences existing 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 -1.7% to -11.5%, with a median of -9.6% and a mean of -7.86%.These adjustments are in an appropriate range for this appraisal problem.

9.The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $174,400, $191,100, $202,100, $184,000 and $155,500, respectively.The appraiser concluded on a $175,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of living area of $101.63 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $140.87, $114.53, $155.86, $118.29 and $103.30.The lower indicated value per square foot of living area represents the subject’s generally inferior site and condition in comparison to the sale properties.

10.Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $175,000.

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.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.[4]

Submission of Case on Documents

A hearing officer is to issue a decision after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing.[5]In some cases, the parties will stipulate to submit a case on the exhibits that are filed with the Commission. In other instances, the Hearing Officer on his own initiative will order a case submitted on documents, as was done in this appeal.Such action is taken generally to expedite the process, and as a convenience to taxpayers not having to take off work to appear in person at the evidentiary hearing.

In the instant appeal, Complainant was granted his request for continuance because of his personal schedule as a self-employed person in that his busiest months were April through September.[6]Continuances are generally to be granted for good cause shown, i.e. serious illness of the party or prior commitment of party.[7]A second continuance is to be denied except in extraordinary circumstances.[8]

No extraordinary circumstances were shown in the present case.Mr. McArthy desired to continue the case essentially to accommodate his personal business schedule.Therefore, rather than simply dismiss the case, and in attempt to accommodate Mr. McArthy’s business commitments, the Hearing Officer elected to have the parties submit the case on documents.In this manner, Complainant was given full opportunity to present whatever documents and statements he deem necessary to make a prima facie case that his property, as of January 1, 2007, would have had a true value in money of $125,000 as asserted on the Complaint for Review of Assessment. Complainant was also able to present his own opinion and criticism of Mr. Hannan’s appraisal.[9]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[10]The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence.A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary.In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.

The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer, or respondent when advocating a value different than that determined by the Board, 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.[11]Complainant’s evidence as will be addressed in detail below did not meet the standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2007.Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive.The Appraisal Report of Mr. Hannan rebutted the presumption of correct assessment and established the fair market value of the property as of January 1, 2007.

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.[12]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[13]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.[14]

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.[15]Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value.[16]Taxpayers who present opinions of value based on their own valuation methodology bear the burden of establishing that their method is acceptable to establish market value as of the given assessment date.Failure to establish that the taxpayer’s methodology has acceptance among those in the appraisal community renders it worthless.

The valuation methodology presented by Mr. McArthy is not accepted by any recognized authority in the appraisal of real estate.The procedure of applying some percentage to a value stipulated to in a prior assessment cycle is not a method accepted by the Commission or Missouri courts.The McArthy valuation process is not persuasive and can be given no probative weight on the issue of fair market value of his property on January 1, 2007.

In stark contrast, Mr. Hannan arrived at an indicated value for the property under appeal by developing an opinion of value relying upon a well established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the sales comparison or market approach.The sales comparison approach is generally understood to be the most reliable methodology to be utilized in the valuation of single-family residences.In a case such as this, where there is sufficient market data, the sales comparison approach is the best tool the appraiser can employ for an appraisal of a single-family residence.

Complainant Fails To Prove Value

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.[17]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.”[18]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[19]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.[20]

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[21]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[22]When the owner’s opinion rests upon a valuation approach that is not used by appraisers in ad valorem tax appeals or in other appraisal areas it lacks proper elements and is grounded on an improper foundation.Therefore, it can be given no probative weight in arriving at the true value in money of the property being appealed.Such is the case with the methodology that Mr. McArthy developed to support his opinion of fair market value.

The McArthy Methodology

Mr. McArthy’s approach to value is contained in a single paragraph on page 2 of his Narrative Statement.

“Using this 2003 assessment as a basis of valuation, one that the County offered, a price of $125,000 represents a 32% increase in valuation over a 4-year period.That being said, my offer of $125,000 as a fair market value is more than fair.”

Complainant’s opinion of value is based on a stipulation between him and St. Louis County in 2003 to place a true value in money of $95,000 on his property.The defects in this line of reasoning are legion.

A stipulated value settling a 2003 appeal is not binding on either party with regard to later assessment cycles.A stipulated value although setting value in a given appeal before the Commission does not in point of fact establish that the true value in money for the given assessment date was as stipulated.A stipulation simply represents that the parties for purposes of a given appeal for a given year agree to an arbitrary amount.Both parties may have various motivations for agreeing to a value.The value stipulated to in a prior appeal does not provide a proper basis for finding what a willing buyer and seller would give for the property four years later.

A further flaw in the taxpayer’s reasoning is that he apparently does not understand that the term “fair market value” is a legal term of art.Mr. McArthy asserts that his value of $125,000 for 1/1/07 “is more than fair.”This is based on his circular reasoning that a 32% increase from the 2003 stipulated value is fair for a 4 year period.Although the taxpayer may be of the opinion that a value for the 2007-08 assessment cycle of $125,000 is “more than fair,” that is not the issue to be decided.It is not only fair that the McArthy property be assessed based upon its true value in money, but that is the required standard in the appeal.[23]

There is no evidence that this percentage of increase has any relation to the actual real estate market for homes like the subject in the period of 2003 to 2007.More importantly, there is no market data to establish that any percentage of increase from the 2003 stipulated value establishes what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as the purchase price of the McArthy property as of January 1, 2007.

Complainant’s opinion of value was not established by substantial and persuasive evidence.It was not founded upon proper elements and a proper foundation.Therefore, it has no probative merit in the appeal.Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof.

Complainant’s Exhibits

Mr. McArthy submitted a number of exhibits.The Hearing Officer has reviewed and considered each of the exhibits, as well as, the narrative discussion provided giving explanation as to the reason for the submission of the exhibits.As detailed below the Exhibits failed to establish the true value in money for the property under appeal as of January 1, 2007.

Exhibit A – Documents of Purchase

There is no issue concerning the ownership of the property at 9345 Sappington Road, Sunset Hills, Missouri by Mr. McArthy on January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008.Therefore, these documents are irrelevant to the issue in the appeal, i.e. fair market value of the property as of the valuation date.

Exhibit B – 2003 Assessment and Settlement Documents

Mr. McArthy relies on this group of documents to establish that he and the Respondent stipulated to a value for the 2003-2004 assessment of $95,000 market value, assessed value of $18,050.This point is not at issue.It is irrelevant.It provides nothing to establish material facts on the issue of the true value in money of the property under appeal for the 2007-2008 assessment.

Exhibit C – Lot Valuations on Sappington Road

This exhibit was presented by Complainant to demonstrate a comparison of values per tenth of an acre for properties on the subject street.He then concluded that by this standard he had one of the highest land valuations on Sappington Road.Irrespective of the appraised lands values the Assessor has placed on the listed properties on Sappington Road, this does not establish the market value as of January 1, 2007.Neither does it rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.

The division of appraised values for residential properties between land and improvements by the Assessor or the Board is not the critical matter.It is part of the mass appraisal system.However, the important factor is the appraised or indicated market value for the property, not for part of the property.The market doesn’t make a distinction between land values and improvement values.The seller and buyer of residential real estate are concerned with the value of the property as a whole, not whether the Assessor has made a correct allocation between the value of land and improvements.

In like manner, a comparison of the tenth of an acre or per square foot value of land for one property against another property, or even a group of properties is probative of nothing with regard to a claim of overvaluation before the Commission.Generally smaller lots sell for more per square foot than larger lots.Averaging of lot values based on any unit value fails to provide any evidence of merit to establish the value of a property (land and improvements).

The calculations presented by Mr. McArthy establish nothing with regard to his claim that the value of $166,000 by the Board for January 1, 2007, is in error.

Exhibit D – Aerial Photographs & Property Record Cards

This exhibit consists of aerial photographs and property record cards of the properties listed in Exhibit C.This is an area along Sappington Road from approximately 9236 to 9345 (subject) Sappington Road and another area from approximately 9519 to 9630 Sappington Road.The photographs, while showing an overhead view of the subject street for the addresses indicated, provide nothing of benefit regarding what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as of January 1, 2007, for the purchase price of Mr. McArthy’s property.Since the photographs were provided in support of Exhibit C, they are irrelevant to the issue of overvaluation of Mr. McArthy’s property.

In like manner the property record cards (PRC) are attached to Exhibit C.The PRC’s are the source for Mr. McArthy’s Exhibit C figures and calculations.Nevertheless, given that Exhibit C is irrelevant to the issue presented in this appeal, the PRC’s supporting Exhibit C are likewise irrelevant.

Exhibit E – Aerial Photographs of Subject & Adjacent Tracts

This exhibit was presented as support from Mr. McArthy’s claim that the percentage of commercial land use given in Exhibit 1 was in error.Complainant asserts that for his property the “surroundings would be at least 50% commercial.”[24]Mr. McArthy is attempting to compare his surrounding area with the subject neighborhood.This is improper when appraising real estate.It is appropriate to take into consideration the subject property’s location.However, limiting the neighborhood to essentially the property across the street from the property being appealed is not proper appraisal practice.

The neighborhood utilized by Mr. Hannan is bounded by Eddie and Park Road to the North, Baptist Church Road to the East and Lindbergh to the South and West.[25]This is proper description of the assessment neighborhood established by the Assessor.Exhibit E provides no evidence to rebut that the present land use in this described neighborhood is not 5% as set forth in Exhibit 1.Therefore, for the purpose of challenging the commercial land use in the subject neighborhood the exhibit is irrelevant.

The photographs were also provided to establish the location of the subject in relation to the intersections of Sappington Road with Denny Road and Gravois Road.In this respect the Exhibit provides location information.To that extent it has relevance, although the photographs in and of themselves do not to establish fair market value.Nor do they establish that Mr. Hannan erred in his adjustment for the subject’s location compared to Comparables 3 and 5.

Exhibit F – Sketch of Subject Lot

Exhibit F is a sketch showing the front portion of the McArthy tract with improvements (house, driveway, concrete apron and detached garage).The sketch of the house identifies (1) a 24.1’ x 22’ area as original house with cellar (A); (2) a 27.2’ x 34.2’ addition with basement (B); (3) a 12’ x 23.5’ addition (C); and 15’ x15’ new deck (D).Mr. McArthy submitted the sketch to establish the square footage of the basement under Area B to be only 941.

A comparison of Exhibit F and the floor plan in Mr. Hannan’s appraisal,[26] shows that the overall measurements to be in agreement, allowing for rounding by the Assessor’s computer generated floor plan.Exhibit F admits that Area A has a cellar.It is noted that Mr. Hannon was not permitted an interior inspection of the subject.[27]Furthermore, Mr. Hannan recognized that the subject basement/cellar was only a partial basement and that it was unfinished.

Exhibit F fails to rebut that the basement under Area B and the cellar under Area A do not comprise approximately 1,182 square feet as shown on the subject’s floor plan.In the absence of the taxpayer allowing the appraiser to make an interior inspection in order to verify or correct measurements, no negative inference will be drawn based upon Mr. McArthy’s claim.Mr. McArthy admits the basement under Area B is 941 square feet.However, he conveniently omitted to provide the square footage for the “cellar” area under Area A.The Hannan floor plan accounts for a 22’ x 12’ area under Area A on Exhibit F to have a basement.This apparently accounts for the “cellar” area.The Hearing Officer is persuaded that the 1,182 square feet of area assigned to the “basement” by the Hannan floor plan properly accounts for the below ground area of both the basement and cellar areas.

Exhibit H – Complainant’s Sales Grid Calculations

This exhibit is a copy of pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1, on which Mr. McArthy has blanked out Mr. Hannan’s adjustments and inserted his own figures for various adjustments to arrive his own indicated values on the five comparable sales.The adjustments made by Complainant are based on Mr. McArthy’s belief that his “figures are more accurate to the market and reflex (sic) real world figures, based on my thirty years in the field of real estate.”[28]No other information was provided by Complainant to establish that he has sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the appraisal of residential properties for ad valorem tax, lending or refinancing purposes to be qualified as an expert in appraisal in proceedings before the Commission.

The controlling statute regarding expert testimony is found in Section 490.065.1, RSMo.The statute provides “In any civil action, if scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” The declaration of Mr. McArthy that he has “thirty years in the field of real estate” does not meet the statutory standard for him to be recognized as a real estate appraisal expert.[29]Therefore, the opinions of value set forth in Exhibit H lack a proper foundation and are irrelevant.

The conclusions of value proffered relying on net adjustments of .318%, .522%, .478%, .440% and .379%, with a median of .44% and a mean of .428% are so far beyond what would be accepted in sound appraisal practice as to render the conclusions of value as totally worthless.The indicated per square foot values under the McArthy calculations come to $70.34, $59.99, $67.81, $66.70 and $59.93, with a median of $66.70 and a mean of $63.95.When compared to the unadjusted per square foot values of $140.87, $114.53, $155.86, $118.29 and $103.30, it is obvious that the McArthy adjustments have no basis in market data.

The testimony of Complainant contained in Exhibits H and P regarding the attempt at a “sales comparison” analysis lack fundamental reliability, given Mr. McArthy’s lack of expertise as a real estate appraiser.There are limited explanations of the adjustments.[30]All of which constitute simple conjecture on the part of the Complainant. “Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.”[31]Accordingly, this testimony is rejected.It lacks probative weight on the issue of the true value in money for Complainant’s property.

Exhibit I – Permit Documents

The permit documents for construction of the deck and detached garage in 1996 – 98 are not probative on any fact in dispute in the appeal.The Respondent has not challenged the existence of either the deck or the garage.Mr. Hannan references the additions in his appraisal report.[32]The documents lack any relevance to establish fair market value of the property under appeal as of January 1, 2007.

Exhibit J – Photographs of Basement and Yard

The photographs of the basement condition, standing water and drains in the subject year are helpful to the extent that they show these conditions.Mr. McArthy rests his claim for a $15,000 deduction for these conditions on these photographs.[33]However, photographs never establish an amount to adjust for a given condition.The Exhibit has relevance only to show the conditions.It has no relevance to establish the amount of any adjustment for these conditions.

Exhibit K – Traffic Count & Photograph

Mr. McArthy offers traffic count statistics and a photograph of traffic in front of his property on Veterans Day to establish that there is a higher traffic count on Sappington Road in front of his home than the area on Sappington Road where Mr. Hannan’s Comps 1 and 4 are located.To the extent, Complainant is attempting to rebut any conclusions reached by Respondent’s appraiser on this factor the documents fail to do so.Mr. Hannan’s appraisal recognized this location factor of the subject and adjusted for it.The documents only serve to confirm that the subject is located, as denoted by Mr. Hannan, on a busy street.[34]Beyond that point they provide no relevant information to establish the value proposed by Complainant.

Exhibit L – Multi-List Sale Sheets

Exhibit L is the Multi-List Sale Sheets (MLS) on the five properties utilized by Mr. Hannan in his appraisal. The documents only provide confirmation for the information provided by Exhibit 1 on the sales comparables.[35] Mr. Hannan set forth that he did utilize the listing service data as part of his appraisal process.It is, of course, proper for appraisers to rely on MLS data as part of their data collection and research for preparing an appraisal.Exhibit L validates the selection of these properties as comparables for valuing the subject.It provides no basis to conclude on a fair market value of $125,000 as proposed by Mr. McArthy.

Exhibit M – Newspaper Articles

Mr. McArthy tenders five newspaper articles downloaded from the Internet in support of his contention that the real estate market was in decline as of and prior to January 1, 2007.The five articles are:

There is no evidentiary benefit to these hearsay documents, for the purpose of establishing the true value in money of the McArthy property as of January 1, 2007.Irrespective of whether the real estate market in general, at any given time, is stable, on the decline or on an upward trend such information does not establish the value of any given property.The information provided and opinions expressed in the news articles address general areas of the nation.None of the information is specific to the St. Louis Metropolitan area, or more specific that area of St. Louis County where Sunset Hills is located and the subject neighborhood.

Taxpayers often become enamored with what they read in the newspaper concerning property values.Nevertheless such hearsay can be given no probative weight on the issue of what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to for the sale price of Mr. McArthy’s home on January 1, 2007.The submitted newspaper articles, irrespective of the national recognition of the individual publications, do not provide any statistical data relative to the specific market of the subject neighborhood.A reading of each article reveals not a single reference to hard sales data for the St. Louis Metropolitan area.Although one article references the “Midwest” the specific areas of the Midwest discussed are South Bend, Detroit, and Cleveland.These documents do not constitute a paired sales analysis to establish the need for any time of sale adjustment.To base a determination of fair market value on a collection of newspaper articles would be to rest the decision on value on nothing more than speculation and conjecture.A conclusion of value must be based on more than this.

Exhibit N – Tax Bills on Jefferson County Properties

Mr. McArthy’s next exhibit is a collection of 2005 and 2007 tax bills on eight condominium units in Jefferson County, Missouri.The tax bills show that for five of the properties the assessed values decreased by $300 each and for the remaining three properties the assessed values decreased by $200 each.According to Complainant, these documents were submitted to show that “the real estate market was in decline locally.”[36]

The Exhibit lacks any relevance to the issue of overvaluation.There are a number of serious problems with the use of these documents to even support Mr. McArthy’s attempt to establish a declining real estate market for his property.The foremost problem is that Jefferson County is not in the subject neighborhood.Comparisons of residential properties in another county are essentially devoid of any probative benefit on whether or not a market in another county is declining.

Furthermore, the Jefferson County properties are apparently rental condominiums, since all are owned by Complainant.His attempt to compare apartments with a single family owner occupied residence illustrates a further lack of training and expertise in real estate appraisal.The fact that values were lowered by the Jefferson County Assessor on a group of condo-apartments falls far short of establishing any trend relative to the real estate market for the subject property.Mr. McArthy’s conclusion that the decline in values is attributable to a general market decline is not established by any hard market data.The decline in values can just as easily be attributable to the Assessor having applied a higher depreciation factor, under a mass appraisal costing system, to the condo units due to them being two years older in 2007 than in 2005.

The bottom line is the Exhibit is not relevant to the issue of fair market value for the subject.It fails to establish any market trend for the subject neighborhood.Any conclusion to that effect based on these documents is nothing but conjecture.

Exhibit O – MLS Data Sheets

Complainant next offered the MLS sale sheets on three properties he apparently proposes as comparable sales to demonstrate a “slow down in the St. Louis market area.”[37]The principle is well established that the owner may not support an opinion of value by reference to comparable sales unless the owner qualifies as an expert.[38]In like manner, the use by the owner of sale properties as comparable to the subject to establish market activity is suspect.

Mr. McArthy omitted to establish the location of these properties in relation to the subject.Each of the three properties is approximately 2 – 3 miles from the subject.All are located outside of the subject neighborhood.Even assuming, with finding, that three sales are sufficient to establish a slowdown in the St. Louis market area, such information is devoid of any evidentiary worth as to the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.

Summary and Conclusion

Complainant did not meet his burden of proof.There is no evidence in the collection of exhibits presented, or in the narrative statement provided that establishes prima facie that the fair market value of the subject property on January 1, 2007 would have been $125,000.The taxpayer completely missed the mark with an erroneous method for valuation.The argument regarding the general real estate market does not address the issue of what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as the purchase price for the property under appeal on January 1, 2007.

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.[39]Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2007, to be $175,000 for Complainant’s property.The adjustments made the Mr. Hannan were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type.The adjustments properly accounted for the various differences between the subject and each comparable.

The factor of the location of Mr. McArthy’s home on a busy street was properly acknowledged by Respondent’s appraiser.He deemed three of the sale properties to be located on similar busy streets.The two other sales not on such streets were properly adjusted for this factor.

An adjustment was made for the subject’s view which was considered inferior to each of the sale properties views.Mr. Hannan adjusted to account for the superior construction of the comparables having some brick construction compared to the subject’s vinyl siding.The subject’s inferior (fair) condition was properly recognized and adjustments made to the comparables for this difference.Other individual amenity items were account for by individual adjustments by the appraiser.

The opinions expressed by Mr. McArthy as to his disagreement with Mr. Hannan’s various adjustments are not persuasive.Opinions by the owner do not constitute rebuttal evidence only a difference in opinion.

Alleged Inaccuracies

Mr. McArthy listed six allegations of inaccuracies in the Hannan appraisal.None of the allegations provide a valid basis for rejecting the appraisal.

Age

Mr. McArthy asserts it is inaccurate to give the age of his home as 56 years, as he asserts a portion of the home was built prior to World War II.[40]This claim is based on hearsay.Complainant admits that the larger portion of his home has been constructed since 1951.[41]Considering the effective age of the house to be 56 years[42] was appropriate for this particular appraisal problem.

Basement Area

The matter of the basement/cellar area has been addressed above.There was no error on the part of Mr. Hannan on this point, given the taxpayer would not permit access for verification of the interior features of the home.

Remodeling in 1998

Mr. Hannan simply noted that the County records indicate some remodeling in 1998.[43]Exhibit I supports the conclusion of Mr. Hannan.Although the construction in 1998 was not an interior remodeling it was new construction to the property.Furthermore, the appraiser’s sales grid shows that he considered the overall condition of the subject (fair) inferior and did not appraise the house has having upgrades in comparison to the sale properties.

Trees

Mr. McArthy advises the trees referenced in Mr. Hannan’s appraisal[44] at the back of the property are not part of his lot.There is no indication in the appraisal that any extra value was attributable to this item.Here again, the failure of the taxpayer to arrange for a site inspection by the appraiser may result in the appraiser having to draw conclusions based upon observations that could have been clarified quite simply by the homeowner allowing an on-site inspection.In any event, the mentioning of the trees in the description of the subject lot provides no basis to reject the conclusion of value determined by Mr. Hannan.

Water Seepage

Mr. McArthy admits that Mr. Hannan acknowledged the problem of water seepage in the basement area.However, the homeowner concludes that the appraiser failed to deduct for this factor.A problem such as this is part of the overall condition of a home.Therefore, it is accounted for in the condition adjustment.Mr. Hannan had information as to the problem.Here again, had the taxpayer permitted an interior inspection, he could have given Mr. Hannan the opportunity to view the extent and nature of the water problem in the basement.In the absence of granting access to inspect and view such a condition, the adjustment for condition is considered appropriate to cover the water seepage issue.

Standing Water in Yard

The matter of the drainage problem and the existence of drains in the yard are addressed in Mr. Hannan’s adjustment for the site for the two properties of nearly identical lot size to the subject.The other properties being smaller did not require an additional adjustment, but the appraiser considered those lots equal to the subject given they were smaller but without any drains.

Summary and Conclusion

Exhibit 1 met the standard of substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish the true value in money for the property to be $175,000 as of January 1, 2007.The assessment must be corrected accordingly.

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 SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $33,250.

A party 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 for this 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, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO65102-0146, 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. [45]

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.

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 31, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

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 31^stday of December, 2008, to:Darren McArthy, 9345 Sappington road, St. Louis, MO 63126,Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Philip 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

TOM MUELLER,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-34130

)

RANDY HOLMAN, ASSESSOR,)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

ORDER

APPROVING STIPULATION OF PARTIES

The parties in these appeals have reached an agreed settlement by stipulation.Pursuant to Section 536.060, V.A.M.S., the Commission confirms this stipulation and enters an order thereon.Decision issued December 23, 2008, is SET ASIDE.

The assessor for Jefferson County is hereby ordered to place upon the assessment roll for that county and for the year 2008 an assessed valuation of $15,000.

The collector of Jefferson 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 these appeals.If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to §139.031.8, RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

SO ORDERED March 3, 2009.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

The decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization approving the valuation of $225,225 (assessed value $75,000) made by the Assessor, is SUSTAINED.

This appeal was heard and this Decision is rendered by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.Complainant appeared in person.Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, David Senkel, Hillsboro, Missouri.

ISSUE

The issue in this appeal is the true value in money of Complainant’s personal property as of January 1, 2008.

SUMMARY

Respondent valued the property at $225,225 (assessed value $75,000) for tax year 2008, which value was approved by the Board of Equalization.The Complainant proposed a value of $0.00 on his Complaint for Review of Assessment and at the hearing stated that he did not know the value of his personal property.

A hearing was held on December 8, 2008, in the Jefferson County Government Center, Hillsboro, Missouri.Complainant testified on his own behalf.Respondent presented the following exhibits on cross examination of the Complainant:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.Jurisdiction is proper.Complainant timely filed his appeal from the decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization.

2.Complainant is Tom Mueller.He is the owner of Dry Creek Ranch.He owned Advanced Construction.His residence, Dry Creek Ranch and Advanced Construction are all located at 6960 Russell Road, Hillsboro, Missouri.

3.Complainant appeals the valuation of the personal property as determined by the Assessor.

4.The Complainant completed a declaration of personal property for Advanced Construction Company in 2008.The Complainant wrote on his declaration that Advanced Construction Company was “Out of Business” and made no claim for personal property.

5.The Complainant testified that at one time Advanced Construction Company owned eleven vehicles and those vehicles were sold in late 2007 and 2008.He does not know how many vehicles he possessed on January 1, 2008.He currently has two of the vehicles.

6.Dry Creek Ranch is not a registered business. The livestock on the ranch includes goats, dogs, cattle, chickens, and horses.

7.Complainant testified that his property can hold up to 100 goats and that he has had 400 goats and 60 kids at different locations.

7.The Complainant testified that although he advertises equipment for sale, he does not sell equipment.Feed, minerals, orchard grass, equipment that he may have advertised and sold were part of a group of people buying items in bulk.

8.Complainant testified that he has sold cattle and bulls.He believes he had 8-15 cows on January 1, 2008.

9.Complainant believes he had two horses on January 1, 2008; he had five horses at the time of the hearing.

10.Complainant has twenty chickens.

11.Complainant breeds and sells Great Pyrenees dogs.He currently has three dogs and has had up to eight puppies.

12.Complainant testified that he does not know what property he had on January 1, 2008, and does not know the value of the property.

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.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.[1]

Personal Property

Pursuant to Section 137.075, RSMo, “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.” “Tangible personal property” includes 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, but does not include household goods, furniture, wearing apparel and articles of personal use, owned and used by a person in his home. Section 137.010.4, RSMo.

So that the Assessor may determine the value of personal property, property declarations are made by taxpayers.The taxpayer completes a true and correct statement of the property. The statement, after being filled out, is signed and sworn to by the taxpayer. Section 137.115.4, RSMo.The list must include (1) A list of all the real estate; (2) A list of all the livestock, poultry, and bee colonies, showing the total number of each; (3) An aggregate statement of all lawn and garden tractors, harvesting equipment, drilling machines, irrigation systems, farm machinery and implements; (4) All automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, minibikes, motorized and recreational vehicles, airplanes and all other motor vehicles; (5) All home, boat and other trailers; mobile homes; boats; boat motors; and all other tangible personal property not exempt by law from taxation. Section 137.120, RSMo.If the Assessor does not obtain a property declaration from a taxpayer, the Assessor shall assess the property on the best information the Assessor can obtain.Section 137.130, RSMo.

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.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.[2]

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, 2008.[3]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.”[4]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[5]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.[6]

In this case, the Complainant presented no evidence as to the personal property he possessed or owned on January 1, 2008.The Complainant presented no evidence as to the market value of any property on January 1, 2008.Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.”[7]

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $75,000.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the 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. [8]

The Collector of Jefferson 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

JOHN SEXTON,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-34093

)

RANDY HOLMAN, ASSESSOR,)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On December 23, 2008, Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan entered her Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the Jefferson County Board of Equalization and setting true value in money for the property under appeal at $223,000, assessed value of $42,370.

Complainant timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.Respondent timely filed his Reply.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard Upon Review

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled.The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide.[1]

The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert or non-expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as she may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part.[2]

The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.[3]

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer.A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.[4]

Grounds for Review

Complainant asserted five “specific facts” as the basis for his Application for Review.The Commission does not find merit in any of the “facts” alleged.None of the allegation of facts relate to determinations made by the Hearing Officer in the Decision.There is no reference to any part of the Decision that is in error as a matter of law or fact.As noted by Counsel for Respondent, Complainant appears in his Application for Review to be attempting to raise some form of claim of discrimination.[5]

As correctly observed by Respondent’s Counsel, no claim of discrimination was plead in the Complaint for Review for Assessment.Nevertheless, Hearing Officer Monaghan addressed in detail the failure of Complainant to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence either the true value in money[6] of his property or discrimination on the part of the Assessor or the Board of Equalization in the assessment of his property.[7]More importantly, the Hearing Officer found that the subject property had been purchased in an arm’s-length transaction in August 2007 for $225,000.[8]This critical fact was not disputed by Complainant.Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence a true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2007, of $139,800 as claimed.

There was nothing “unique” in the appraisal methodology used by Respondent’s appraiser.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.[9]Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value.[10] Respondent’s appraiser presented an opinion of fair market value based upon his development of both the Cost and Sales Comparison approaches.[11]Both methodologies are recognized by the courts of this state and the Commission as valid techniques for the valuation of real property in ad valorem tax appeals.The approaches to value were properly developed and supported by the August 2007 sales price of the property being appraised.

Complainant’s assertions relative to being punished for appealing his assessment and warnings from Respondent’s Counsel to drop the appeal are not well taken.The Commission advises all taxpayers – “It is possible that assessment might remain the same be lowered, or raised.”[12]The action of Respondent’s Counsel of informing Complainant that the assessment could be raises was a courtesy to the taxpayer so that he was not under any misunderstanding or incorrect assumption.[13]When a taxpayer files an appeal with the Commission on overvaluation, both parties have the right to present evidence to establish the fair market value of the subject property.The Hearing Officer has the duty to establish the true value in money of the property being appealed based upon the relevant evidence in the record.

The Hearing Officer properly carried out her duty in this appeal.Complainant’s Application for Review is not well taken.

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.The Decision and Order of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the Commission.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Jefferson 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.

SO ORDERED February 11, 2009.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.Hearing Officer finds Respondent rebutted the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $223,000, residential assessed value of $42,370.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by counsel David Senkel.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, 2008.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $214,200, assessed value of $40,700, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $139,800, assessed value of $26,562.A hearing was conducted on December 8, 2008, at the Jefferson County Administration Building, Hillsboro, Missouri.At the hearing, the Respondent proposed a value of $225,000.

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. He proposed a value of $139,800.Complainant submitted Exhibit A.Exhibit A consists of photographs and information on the subject property and four properties in a subdivision next to the subject property’s subdivision.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent presented the testimony of Joseph Berezowski, Jefferson County Assessor’s Officer Appraiser. Joseph Berezowski testified relative to his valuation of the subject property and offered into evidence Exhibit 1.Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.Exhibit 1 is a narrative appraisal report on the subject property.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 1299 Riesling Lane, Pevely, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 10-3.0-07.0-219.The subject property is a 0.33 acre lot with an improvement.The improvement is a single-family residence of 1,830 square feet gross living area above grade and 1,830 square foot unfinished basement.The residence has six rooms including three bedrooms and two baths.The improvements were completed in August 2007 with a purchase price of $225,000.A realtor was involved in the transaction.The property was on the open market.

3.Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2008, to be $223,000.

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.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.[14]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[15]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.[16]Complainant’s purchase of the property in 2007 constituted substantial and persuasive evidence of the fair market value of the subject property.

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.[17]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[18]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.[19]

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, 2008.[20]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.”[21]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[22]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.[23]

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[24]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[25]

Complainant’s opinion of value is based upon improper elements and foundation.The Complainant presented information regarding four other properties.The information included the sales date of the properties, the selling price and the true value in 2007 as set by the Assessor.The properties are located in a neighboring subdivision.The information contains the size of the comparables and the lot size but not their age.After comparing the properties sales price in 2007 and 2008 with the Assessor’s true values on the property in 2007, the Complainant concluded on a value for his property for 2008 of $139,200.

The methodology in establishing true value of the property is flawed.First, comparing the subject property with other properties that sold requires market based adjustments for differences in age, location, lot sizes, improvement sizes, condition, quality, etc.Second, comparing sales prices in late 2007 and early 2008, with true value as of January 1, 2007, as determined by the Assessor, and using those comparisons to extrapolate a true value for the subject property as of January 1, 2008, is not a methodology recognized by the State Tax Commission to determine the market value of the property.

The Complainant also raises the issue of discrimination.Although, the Complainant did not make that claim on his Complaint for Review of Assessment and did not raise the issue until after the hearing had begun, the Hearing Officer will address that argument.In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of his property; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction.[26] Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination.Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.[27]The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive.[28] No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.[29]

Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainant has the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office.

Complainant must then prove the average level of assessment for residential property in Jefferson County.This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Jefferson County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the assessor’s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.

The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all residential property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Jefferson County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive.[30]

Complainant did not establish market value of his property and did not demonstrate that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Jefferson County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than his property.Complainant’s claim of discrimination is based upon four properties.

Because Complainant has failed to establish the market value of his property and has failed to establish that he is being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other properties in Jefferson County, he has failed to establish discrimination.

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined 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. [31] In this instance, the Board set the value for the residential property at $214,200.Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence of a value of $223,000.The presumption of correct assessment was rebutted and a higher value established.

Respondent’s Opinion of Value

Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property.[32]

Furthermore, a price agreed to between a willing buyer and seller creates a presumption the transaction was a market transaction.[33]There is no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude that the Complainant’s purchase was anything other than an arm’s-length, open market transaction.The August 2007 purchase was at a time relevant to the January 1, 2008, valuation.The purchase price of the property was $225,000.

The Respondent further presented a Summary Appraisal Report.The Appraisal used a cost approach and a sales comparison approach, both methodologies recognized by the State Tax Commission.Under the cost approach, the appraiser used the Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Guide and concluded a value of $227,000.Under the sales comparison approach, the appraiser concluded a value of $223,000.The appraiser compared the subject property to three sales.The comparable properties were located in the same subdivision as the subject property.The only differences in the properties were small differences in lot size, the number of garages, and deck/fireplace options.The appraiser made appropriate adjustments to the comparable properties resulting in a range of values from $219,400 to $227,380.The appraiser concluded a value of $223,000.

The appraiser placed most weight on the comparable sales approach as it reflects the actual market and the availability of the recent sales of properties within a close proximity of the subject property.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Jefferson County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $42,370.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the 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, MO65102-0146, 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. [34]

The Collector of Jefferson 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

LINDA ETHRIDGE,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-34129

)

RANDY HOLMAN, ASSESSOR,)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.Hearing Officer finds Respondent rebutted the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $225,000, residential assessed value of $42,750.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by counsel David Senkel.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, 2008.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jefferson County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $212,600, assessed value of $40,400, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $161,700, assessed value of $30,723.A hearing was conducted on December 8, 2008, at the Jefferson County Administration Building, Hillsboro, Missouri.At the hearing, the Respondent proposed a value of $225,000.

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 her own behalf.She proposed a value of $161,700.Complainant submitted Exhibit A.Exhibit A consists of photographs and MLS information on the subject property and four properties in a subdivision next to the subject property’s subdivision.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent presented the testimony of Joseph Berezowski, Jefferson County Assessor’s Officer Appraiser. Joseph Berezowski testified relative to his valuation of the subject property and offered into evidence Exhibit 1.Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.Exhibit 1 is a narrative appraisal report on the subject property.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 1177 Riesling Lane, Pevely, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 10-3.0-07.0-172.The subject property is a 0.32 lot with an improvement.The improvement is a single family residence of 1,868 square feet gross living area above grade and 1,814 square foot unfinished basement.The residence has six rooms including three bedrooms and two baths.The improvements were completed in September 2007 with a purchase price of $234,000.A realtor was involved in the transaction.The property was appraised for the Complainant for a loan in September 2007 and again in April 2008.

3.Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2008, to be $225,000, as proposed.

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.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.[1]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.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.[2]Complainant’s purchase of the property in 2007 constituted substantial and persuasive evidence of the fair market value of the subject property.

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.[3]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[4]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.[5]

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, 2008.[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.”[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]

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[10]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[11]

Complainant’s opinion of value is based upon improper elements and foundation.The Complainant presented information regarding four other properties.The information included the sales date of the properties, the selling price and the true value in 2007 as set by the Assessor.The properties are located in a neighboring subdivision and were built from 2000-2003.After comparing the properties sales price in 2007 and 2008 with the Assessor’s true values on the property in 2007, the Complainant concluded on a value for her property for 2008 of $161,700.

The methodology used by Complainant in establishing true value of the property is flawed.First, comparing the subject property with other properties that sold requires market based adjustments for differences in age, location, lot sizes, improvement sizes, condition, quality, etc.Second, comparing sales prices in late 2007 and early 2008, with true value as of January 1, 2007, as determined by the Assessor, and using those comparisons to extrapolate a true value for the subject property as of January 1, 2008, is not a methodology recognized by the State Tax Commission to determine the market value of the property.

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined 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.[12]In this instance, the Board set the value for the residential property at $212,600.Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence of a value of $225,000.The presumption of correct assessment was rebutted and a higher value established.

Respondent’s Opinion of Value

Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property.[13]

Furthermore, a price agreed to between a willing buyer and seller creates a presumption the transaction was a market transaction.[14]There is no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude that the Complainant’s purchase was anything other than an arm’s-length, open market transaction.The September 2007 purchase was at a time relevant to the January 1, 2008, valuation.The purchase price of the property was $234,000.

The Respondent further presented a Summary Appraisal Report.The Appraisal used a cost approach and a sales comparison approach, both methodologies recognized by the State Tax Commission.Under the cost approach, the appraiser used the Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Guide and concluded a value of $226,000.Under the sales comparison approach, the appraiser concluded a value of $225,000.The appraiser compared the subject property to three sales.The comparable properties were located in the same subdivision as the subject property; Comparable 1 was on the same street and the subject property, Comparable 2 was across the street from the subject property, and Comparable 3 was four lots away from the subject property.The Comparables sold from August 24, 2007, to November 9, 2007.The only differences in the properties were small differences in lot size, the number of garages, and deck/fireplace options.The appraiser made appropriate adjustments to the comparable properties resulting in a range of values from $221,200 to $227,880.The appraiser concluded a value of $225,000.

The appraiser placed most weight on the comparable sales approach as it reflects the actual market and the availability of the recent sales of properties within a close proximity of the subject property.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Jefferson County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $42,750.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the 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, MO65102-0146, 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. [15]

The Collector of Jefferson 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Linda Ethridge, 1177 Riesling Lane, Pevely, MO 63070, Complainant; David Senkel, One Thurman Court, P.O. Box 800, Hillsboro, MO 63050, Attorney for Respondent; Randy Holman, Assessor; Wes Wagner, Clerk; Beth Mahn, Collector, Jefferson County Courthouse, Hillsboro, MO 63050.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

ROBERT E. SEXTON,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-90022

)

DEBBIE JAMES,ASSESSOR,)

TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization SET ASIDE.True Value in Money set at $38,000, assessed value of $7,220.Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared pro se.Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2007.

SUMMARY

Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting the appraised value of the subject property at $45,493, assessed residential value of $8,640.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 924 Cedar Street, Cabool, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 30-1-12-2-2-2.

3.By Order issued November 3, 2008, appeal was set for evidentiary hearing at

2:30 p.m., Thursday, December 4, 2008, in the Texas County Courthouse, Houston, Missouri.Complainant did not appear.Respondent consented to the appeal being decided based on the documents filed by Complainant with the Complaint for Review of Assessment.

4.Complainant filed with Complaint for Review of Assessment a copy of Settlement Statement, dated August 29, 2007, for the purchase of the subject property for $38,000.Settlement Statement received as Exhibit A.

5.Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2007, to be $38,000.

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.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.[1]

Hearing Officer Finds Value

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[2]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.[3]Exhibit A constitutes substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment.

A price agreed to between a willing buyer and seller creates a presumption that the transaction was a market transaction.[4]Phoenix Redevelopment Corporation v. Walker, 812 S.W.2d 881, 883-4 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property.[5] The purchase of the property under appeal in August, 2007 was at a time relevant for valuation as of January 1, 2007.Complainant’s evidence established the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2007, to be $38,000.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $7,220.

A party 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, MO65102-0146, 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. [6]

The Collector of Texas 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”
stroked=”f”>

<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:207pt;
height:54pt’>

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Robert E. Sexton, 12445 Goldenrod Dr., Plato, MO 65552, Complainant; Mike Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, Texas County Courthouse Annex, 116 E. Main, Houston, MO 65483, Attorney for Respondent; Debbie James, Assessor, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Don Troutman, Clerk, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Tammy Cantrell, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Revenue, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

GARY FRIEND & CHERYL GILBERTSEN,)

)

Complainants,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-90006

)

DEBBIE JAMES ASSESSOR,)

TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting value for property identified by locator number 1-8-34-5 is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the property for tax year 2008 is set at $28,577, assessed value of $5,360; residential – $5,230, agricultural – $130.

Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting value for property identified by locator number 1-8-33-6 is SET ASIDE.True value in money for the property for tax year 2008 is set at $26,075, assessed value of $4,090; residential – $2,610, agricultural – $1,480.

Complainants appeared pro se. Respondent appeared pro se.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 properties on January 1, 2007.

SUMMARY

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting values for the residential portions of the subject properties.

The Board set a residential value for Property 1-8-34-5 of $27,527, assessed value of $5,231.Complainants proposed a value of $14,975, assessed value of $2,846.

The Board set a residential value for Property 1-8-33-6 of $19,379, assessed value of $3,683.Complainants proposed a value of $8,570, assessed value of $1,629.

A hearing was conducted on November 6, 2008, at the Texas County Courthouse, Houston, Missouri.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainants testified on the issue of the fair market value of both properties.Complainants did not challenge the agricultural assessment on their properties, but disputed the values placed on the residential portions. Complainants testified to the unfinished condition of the house on the 1-8-33-6 property.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent testified as to the valuation of Complainants; properties.The property record card on the 1-8-33-6 property was received into evidence as Exhibit 1.The property record card on the 1-8-34-5 property was received into evidence as Exhibit 2.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject properties are located at 12811 Bailey Road, Licking, Missouri.

The property identified by parcel number 1-8-34-5 consists of 7.7 acres.Seven acres are agricultural graded land with an appraised value of $1,050, assessed value of $130.Seven-tenths of an acre is a home site improved by a mobile home with an appraised value of $27,527, assessed value of $5,230.

The property identified by parcel number 1-8-33-6 consists of 10 acres.Nine acres are agricultural graded land with buildings with an appraised value of $12,350, assessed value of $1,480.One acre is a home site improved by a 26’ by 58’ unfinished structure with an appraised value of $19,379, assessed value of $3,680.

3.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.

4.Complainant’s 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, for the 1-8-34-5 residential property to be $14,975, as proposed.Complainant’s 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, for the 1-8-33-6 residential property to be $8,570, as proposed.

5.Respondent, after reviewing photographs of the house on the 1-8-33-6 residential property and hearing Complainants testimony concurred that the residential value should be set at $13,725.

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.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.[1]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[2]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.[3]

Complainants testimony and photographs reviews by the assessor and the Hearing Officer establish that the house on the 1-8-33-6 property was in an unfinished condition.The evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment on this parcel.Evidence as to the 1-8-34-5 parcel was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment.

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.[4]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[5]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.[6]

Complainants’ 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.[7]There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayers in a Commission appeal still bear the burden of proof.The taxpayers are the moving party seeking affirmative relief.Therefore, the Complainants bear the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”[8]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[9]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.[10]

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[11]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[12]Complainants’ evidence was sufficient to warrant a reduction in value on the unfinished house.Evidence as to the mobile home valuation was not based upon any market data that would support a different value.Therefore, the owner’s opinion could be given no probative weight.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property identified by parcel number 1-8-34-5 as set by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.The assessed value for the property for tax year 2008 is set at $5,360.

The assessed valuation for the subject property identified by parcel number 1-8-33-6 as set by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.The assessed value for the property for tax year 2008 is set at $4,090.

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 for this 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, 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. [13]

The Collector of Texas 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Gary Friend, P.O. Box 864, Licking, Mo 65542, Complainant; Mike Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, Texas County Courthouse Annex, 116 E. Main, Houston, MO 65483, Attorney for Respondent; Debbie James, Assessor, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Don Troutman, Clerk, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Tammy Cantrell, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Revenue, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

CLINT SEVERE,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-90004

)

DEBBIE JAMES,ASSESSOR,)

TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Appeal dismissed.Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization AFFIRMED.Appeal dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2007.

SUMMARY

Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting the appraised value of the subject property at $11,993, assessed residential value of $2,280.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 9536 Splitlimb Road, Raymondville, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 12-5.2-12-1.

3.Complainant filed with the Commission on November 25, 2008, a Stipulation of Assessed Value stipulating to the Appraised value of $11,993, assessed value of $2,280, the values set by the Board.

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.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.[1]

Dismissal of Appeal

A Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure of prosecution.[2]Complainant’s stipulation to the value set by the Board has the same effect as a dismissal of the appeal.Appeal is dismissed on the basis of Complainant’s agreement to the Board’s value.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $2,280.

Complainant 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, MO65102-0146, 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. [3]

The Collector of Texas 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”
stroked=”f”>

<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:207pt;
height:54pt’>

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Clint L. Severe, 9536 Splitlimb Road, Raymondville, MO 65555, Complainant; Mike Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, Texas County Courthouse Annex, 116 E. Main, Houston, MO 65483, Attorney for Respondent; Debbie James, Assessor, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Don Troutman, Clerk, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Tammy Cantrell, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Revenue, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483.

____________________________

Barbara Heller, Legal Coordinator

MICHAEL DENNIS HAYNES,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-88000

)

JODY LEMMON, ASSESSOR,)

STODDARD COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On December 23, 2008, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the Stoddard County Board of Equalization and setting the assessed value on the property under appeal at $440 as residential property.

Respondent timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.Complainant filed his Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

and

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer.A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.[1]

Respondent’s Basis for Appeal

Respondent asserts as his basis for seeking the overturning of the Decision the following:

Prior to this property selling at Tax Sale, the owners reported to be that they both owned the manufactured home and the land (per my questionnaire).They are married and took title to the real estate as husband and wife.

I assessed the manufactured home and land together.I feel I was right in my assessment, and I feel the hearing officer is wrong in his decision and order.

This is a difficult case because it involves an Assessor who conscientiously and correctly performed his duties in assessing the manufactured home in question, yet, due to misinformation he received and the state of the law, he cannot prevail in this appeal.The Assessor discovered the presence of the manufactured home and observed that it appeared to be physically converted to real estate.He went a step further and inquired as to the ownership of the land and the ownership of the manufactured home.The prior owners, the Fowlers, indicated identical joint ownership of both the land and the manufactured home.All physical appearances and information supplied to him at the time, led the Assessor to classify and assess the manufactured home as real property as he would be required to do under Section 700.111, RSMo.No fault can be found with the procedure followed by the Assessor.

However, the property could not have been and was not converted to real estate because of the ownership of the land and manufactured home itself differed.Mr. and Mrs. Fowler reported they both were owners of the manufactured home; they were not. Respondent was misled by inaccurate reporting by the Fowlers.While both Mr. and Mrs. Fowler owned the land upon which the manufactured home sat, only Mrs. Fowler held legal title to the manufactured home.[2]

A case addressing this conversion issue, In re Estate of Parker v. Rosa Parker, 25 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), is almost directly on point.The court held that when ownership of the land differed from ownership of the manufactured home (in the Parker case the husband and wife owned the manufactured home and the land was owned only by the husband), the manufactured home could not be converted to real estate pursuant to Section 700.111, RSMo.The court made this finding despite the fact that the wheels, axles and hitches had been removed, and the manufactured home was on a foundation, as in the case at hand.The State Tax Commission is bound by the judicial precedence established by Missouri’s courts, and, accordingly, affirms the decision of the hearing officer.

In so ruling, this Commission does not assert that when assessing land and manufactured home, an Assessor should investigate beyond the inquiries made by the Respondent, as to who is the actual owner of the manufactured home.It is reasonable and proper for the Assessor to rely upon the information provided by the owners as to ownership.In almost all such cases, accurate information will be received and an accurate assessment will be established.Had the information supplied by the previous owners been correct, the conversion of the manufactured home to real estate would have been perfected, Complainant would have purchased the land and the manufactured home at the tax sale, and the result of this decision would be different.

The Hearing Officer correctly determined that Complainant did not obtain legal title to the manufactured home.[3]The analysis of the existing law presented in the Decision correctly addressed the facts of this case.[4]

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.The Decision and Order of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the Commission.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Stoddard 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.

SO ORDERED February 11, 2009.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.Complainant rebutted the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $2,300, residential assessed value of $440.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared pro se.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, 2008.Specifically, the issue presented is: whether a mobile home, not titled in the name of the land owner, can be assessed against the land on which the mobile home is affixed?

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $56,500, assessed value of $10,735, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $2,500, assessed value of $475.A hearing was conducted on November 19, 2008, at the Stoddard County Courthouse, Bloomfield, 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 and offered into evidence Exhibit A.Exhibit A was received into evidence.The Exhibit consisted of the following documents.

Complainant’s contention was, as purchaser of the subject real estate under a collector’s deed, he did not obtain title to or ownership of the double-wide mobile home located on the property.Complainant asserted the assessment against the property he owned as of January 1, 2008 could only be on the value of the land and that his land should not be assessed for an improvement he did not own.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered the following Exhibits, which were received into evidence.[5]

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 14476 Oak Street, Gray Ridge, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 21-3-8-4-4-3.It is legally described as Walston’s First Addition, Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, or Walston’s First Addition, Lots 3 & 4.The parcel is a 100’ x 150’ lot.[6]The Assessor’ appraised value for the 2007-2008 assessment cycle for the land was $2,300.[7]

3.The subject property was legally titled as of January 1, 2007, in the names of Darren Dean Fowler and Lisa Ann Fowler, husband and wife.[8]

4.As of January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008, a 27’ x 80’ 2000 Fleetwood double wide mobile home (home) was affixed to and situated on the subject property.[9]The running gears and tongues had been removed from the home.The home was resting on concrete block foundation piers, with concrete slab footings.The home was attached to utility services.[10]The home was titled in the name of Lisa Fowler, with a First Lien with Home Acceptance Corp.[11]The Assessor’ appraised value for the 2007-2008 assessment cycle for the mobile home was $54,200.[12]

5.Michael D. Haynes (Complainant) obtained title to the subject property (land) by Collector’s Deed, dated September 5, 2007, recorded on September 7, 2007, Book 345, Pages 545 – 546, Records of Stoddard County.The amount paid was $2,556.79.[13]Complainant did not obtain title to the double wide mobile home, owned by Lisa Fowler, located on the land.[14]

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.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.[15]

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[16]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.[17]The evidence presented was sufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish that the value of the property as of January 1, 2008, was to be based upon the land value only.The amount paid for purchase at a tax sale does not establish the fair market value of a property.Mr. Haynes presented no evidence to establish that as of January 1, 2007, the fair market value of the land under appeal was $2,500, therefore, the presumption of correct assessment by the Board as to the land value was not rebutted.

Valuation of Complainant’s Property

The valuation of Mr. Haynes’ property presents a case of first impression to the Commission.The determination of value is purely a matter of law, as there are no disputed facts.The value of the property owned by Complainant for tax year 2008 is to either be the value placed on it by the Assessor for both the land and the mobile home, or the value must be for the land only, as determined by the Assessor.In fact, Complainant did not actually contest the true value or appraised value set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board for either the land or the mobile home.Complainant’s only argument is that he should only be assessed for the land.

Complainant was not on January 1, 2008, the owner of the Fowler mobile home.Its location on the subject property acquired in September 2007 by Mr. Haynes did not give him any ownership or possessory interest.He was neither the owner nor holder of the mobile home.Therefore, he cannot be liable for taxes on the mobile home during the tax year of 2008.[18]

The Assessor assessed the mobile home and land as residential property for the 2007 – 2008 assessment cycle.A mobile home actually used as a dwelling unit is assessed as residential real property for the purpose of taxation.[19]The assessment for the 2007 – 2008 assessment cycle of the mobile home owned by Lisa Fowler on land owned by Darren Dean Fowler and Lisa Ann Fowler was appropriate under Section 137.115.6, RSMo.However, upon the land being sold and title being transferred on the land in September 2007, the mobile home, although located on Complainant’s land, could not be assessed as Mr. Haynes’ real or personal property.

“Any amount of tax due and owing based on the assessment of a manufactured home shall be included on the personal property tax statement of the manufactured home owner unless the manufactured home has been converted to real property in compliance with section 700.111 RSMo, in which case the amount of tax due and owing on the assessment of the manufactured home as a realty improvement to the existing real estate parcel shall be included on the real property tax statement of the real estate owner.”[20]

Mobile homes are to be assessed as personal property, unless the mobile home has been converted to real property under Section 700.111, RSMo.[21]The conversion of a mobile home (personal property) to real property is accomplished by two steps (1) attaching to a permanent foundation situated on real property owned by the manufactured home owner; (emphasis added) and (2) removal or modification of the running gears and hitches.[22]When this has been accomplished the mobile home is assessed as real property on the tax statement of the real estate owner.[23]

The assessment of a mobile home as an improvement against the owner of the land on which the home has been attached by placement on piering or foundation is permitted if the mobile home owner and the land owner are the same. As of January 1, 2007, Darren and Lisa Fowler were the land owners, however Lisa Fowler was the owner of the mobile home.Therefore, the first requirement of Section 700.111 was not satisfied.The mobile home on January 1, 2007, although attached to a permanent foundation, was not situated on real property owned by the manufactured home owner.The mobile home could not be assessed as an improvement against land that the mobile home owner did not own.[24]Because that circumstance (i.e. mobile home owner and land owner were not the same) also existed as of January 1, 2008, Mr. Haynes cannot be assessed the value of the mobile home, but can only be assessed for the value of the land.As of January 1, 2008, the mobile home did not satisfy the first requirement of Section 700.111 for conversion to real property.

The valuation by the Assessor of the mobile home of $54,200 is to be subtracted from the valuation of the home and land at $56,500.This leaves the land value of $2,300 as the appraised value of Complainant’s real property for the 2008 tax year.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Stoddard County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $440.

A party 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 for this Decision.The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Said application mailed 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. [25]

The Collector of Stoddard 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer

JAMES & SYLVIA GLEESON,)

)

Complainants,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-32579

)

SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,)

ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainants did not rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $273,530, residential assessed value of $51,970.Complainant, Sylvia Gleeson, appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Assistant County Counselor, Charissa Mayes.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. Charles County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $273,530, assessed value of $51,970, as residential property.Complainants proposed a value of $ 249,900, assessed value of $47,480 in their Complaint for Review of Assessment.A hearing was conducted on December 2, 2008, at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri.

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

Complainants’ Evidence

Ms. Gleeson testified in her own behalf.She gave her opinion of fair market value as of January 1, 2007, to be $249,900 to $259,900, although she testified she would not sell the property for that amount.This opinion of value was based on information she had received from realtors in 2008.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Steven Riney, appraiser for St. Charles County.The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property.The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Riney was received into evidence.Mr. Riney arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $280,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of five properties deemed comparable to the subject property.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.The subject property is located at 2717 Stonewall Station, St. Charles, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 3-0118-5093-00-7, assessor’s account number 428200A006.The property consists of .29 of an acre lot improved by a two-story brick, single-family structure of good quality construction.The house was built in 1976 and appears to be in fair condition.The residence has a total of seven rooms, four bedrooms, two and a half baths, and contains 2,475 square feet of living area.There is an unfinished basement and an attached two-car garage.[1]

3.Complainants listed their home for sale in the spring of 2006 for $314,000.It was listed with a realtor.It was reduced to $305,000 before it was removed from the market.No offers were made while it was listed for sales.The property was listed in the spring of 2007 at $289,900 with a realtor, reduced to $279,900.No offers were received.Complainants offered the property for sale in the summer of 2008 for $268,900.However, no signs were posted and no adds were taken out to advertise that the property was for sale.[2]

4.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.

5.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 $, as proposed.

6.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 five properties were located within a mile of the subject.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.

7.The appraiser properly adjusted for differences existing between the subject and each comparable, to bring the comparables in line with the subject for purposes of the appraisal problem.The adjusted sales prices established the following range of values: $270,000, $307,030, $275,624, $271,500 and $298,610.A conclusion of $280,000 was proper based on these indicated values.

8.Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $280,000.However, Respondent’s appraisal was accepted only to sustain the original assessment made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value.Respondent met the standard of clear, convincing and cogent evidence in this appeal to sustain the original valuation of $273,530.

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.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 CountyBoardof 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]An opinion of value based upon general realtor information does not meet the standard necessary to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.

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.[6]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[7]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.[8]

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.[9]Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value.[10] Mrs. Gleeson’s methodology to arrive at her opinion of value was reliance on information and statements from realtors.Such information does not constitute a proper method for the valuation of real property for ad valorem tax purposes.Respondent’s appraiser presented both a cost and sales comparison approach to arrive at an indicated value for the property under appeal.Both of these methodologies are appropriate to establish value in an appeal before the Commission.

Complainants’ 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.[11]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.”[12]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[13]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.[14]

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[15]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[16]The testimony of Mrs. Gleeson in support of her opinion of value did not establish the proper elements or a proper foundation establishing the fair market value of the subject property for January 1, 2007.Therefore, no probative weight can be given to the opinion of value.Opinions derived from discussions with a realtor or from general sales data from realtors are not grounded in any methodology recognized by the Commission or the courts.

The listing history on the property is not persuasive.Even the reduced listing prices in both 2006 and 2007 give support to the value placed on the property by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.The offering of the property in 2008 did not constitute a sufficient exposure to the market to test the value of the property.In general listings of properties with realtors can be given some persuasive weight.However, the listings relevant to January 1, 2007 fail to establish a market value of only $249,900 or $259,900.

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

The Respondent has imposed upon him by the provisions of Section 137.115.1, RSMo, the burden of proof to present clear, convincing and cogent evidence to sustain a valuation on residential property which is made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program.There is a presumption in this appeal that the original valuation, which was sustained by the Board of Equalization, was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program.There was no evidence to rebut the presumption, therefore, in order to sustain the valuation of the subject property at $273,530, appraised value, Respondent’s evidence must come within the guidelines established by the legislature and must clearly and convincingly persuade the Hearing Officer as to the value sought to be sustained.

The statutory guidelines for evidence to meet the standard of clear, convincing and cogent include the following:

(1)The findings of the assessor based on an appraisal of the property by generally accepted appraisal techniques; and

(2) The purchase prices from sales of at least three comparable properties and the address or location thereof.As used in this paragraph, the word comparable means that:

(a)Such sale was closed at a date relevant to the property valuation; and

(b) Such properties are not more than one mile from the site of the disputed property, except where no similar properties exist within one mile of the disputed property, the nearest comparable property shall be used.Such property shall be within five hundred square feet in size of the disputed property, and resemble the disputed property in age, floor plan, number of rooms, and other relevant characteristics.[17]

Clear, cogent and convincing evidence is that evidence which clearly convinces the trier of fact of the affirmative proposition to be proved.It does not mean that there may not be contrary evidence.[18]The quality of proof, to be clear and convincing must be more than a mere preponderance but does not require beyond a reasonable doubt.[19]“For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.”[20]

The appraisal report of Mr. Riney conformed to the statutory guidelines to meet the standard of clear, cogent and convincing evidence to affirm the value of $273,530.

Evidence of Increase in Value

In any case in St. Charles County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal.[21]Mr. Riney’s appraisal report provided substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value of $280,000.However, that evidence is only received for sustaining the value set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board and not for increasing the valuation of Complainants’ property.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $51,970.

Complainants may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date of the Certificate of Service of this decision.The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Said application must be mailed 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. [22]

The Collector of St. Charles 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Sylvia Gleeson, 2717 Stonewall Station, St. Charles, MO 63303-6137, Complainant; Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor, 100 North Third Street, Room 216, St. Charles, MO 63301, Attorney for Respondent; Scott Shipman, Assessor, 201 North Second, Room 247, St. Charles, MO 63301-2870; Amy Gann, Registrar, 100 North Third Street, Suite 206, St. Charles, MO 63301; Michelle McBride, Collector, 201 North Second Street, Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

RUTH HARKER,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-20003

)

ED BUSHMEYER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $303,500, residential assessed value of $57,670.Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared by Associate City Counselor. Carl W. Yates, III.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 City Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $317,210, assessed value of $60,270, as residential property.The Board reduced the value to $303,530, assessed value of $57,670.Complainant proposed no value on the Complainant for Review of Assessment.A hearing was conducted on November 18, 2008, at the St. Louis City Hall, St. Louis, 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 her own behalf.She gave her opinion of the fair market value as of January 1, 2007, to be between $250,000 and $260,000.Ms. Harker testified the subject property had been listed for sale in the spring of 2005 for $275,000.The following exhibits were offered into evidence.

Counsel for Respondent objected to each exhibits on the grounds of Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack of Verification and Relevance.The objections were sustained.The Exhibits are maintained in the Appeal file, but are not part of the record.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Walter Carter, St. Louis City Appraiser.The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property.The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Carter was received into evidence.Mr. Carter arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $303,500 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of three properties deemed comparable to the subject property.

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 City Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property is located at 5811 Itaska, St. Louis, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 5751-00-02300.The property consists of 4,375 square foot lot improved by a two-story brick, single-family structure of average quality construction.The house was built in 1939 and appears to be in good condition.The residence has a total of seven rooms, which includes three bedrooms, two baths, and contains 1,732 square feet of living area.There is a full basement and a detached two-car garage.

3.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.

4.Complainant’s 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 $250,000 to $260,000, as proposed.

5.The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value. The sale properties were located on the same block as the subject.Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2007.[1]The sale properties were similar to the subject in style (Brick- 2 Story), quality of construction (Average), age (75-76 years), condition (Good), room (7-8), bedroom (3) and bathroom (1.5-2.5) count, living area (1,770 – 1,969 sq. ft.), location (same block), site size (4,375 sq. ft.) and other amenities of comparability.

6.Respondent’s presented substantial and persuasive evidence[2] to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $303,530.

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.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]

Presumptions 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 substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.In the absence of such evidence, the Board’s value stands.

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.[6]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[7]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.[8]

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.[9]Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value.[10] Complainant did not present evidence of value based upon any methodology recognized by the Commission or the Courts of this state.

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.[11]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.”[12]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[13]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.[14]As addressed below, the mandated evidentiary standard was not met by Complainant.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[15]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[16]In the present appeal, Ms. Harker gave her opinion of value based upon information contained in three exhibits.Those exhibits were excluded from evidence.There is no substantiation for the opinion of value.The opinion does not rest upon proper elements or a proper foundation.It can be given no probative weight in the appeal.The opinion of value was not derived from any appraisal methodology accepted by the Commission for valuation of real estate for ad valorem tax purposes.

Exclusion of Exhibits

Complainant’s exhibits were excluded upon proper objection by Respondent’s Counsel.The basis for the ruling excluding the exhibits is herein provided.

Exhibit A – Sales and MLS Listing Information

Taxpayers often feel that simply by providing a list of recent sales and a few MLS listing or sale data sheets that they can support their opinion of value.This is a seriously mistaken view.The list of sales submitted in this case is quite long.It covers a single letter size page front and back.Beyond the fact that the document is rank hearsay, the list of sales are all from 2008.The only information provided is the address, number of bedrooms, number of baths, selling dates and selling prices.Such information is insufficient for even an appraiser to conclude value for the subject property.

Lists such as this provide no relevant evidence from which the Hearing Officer can conclude any value for a property under appeal.Such a list would only be a starting place for an appraiser to appraise a given property.However, given that the valuation date for this appeal is January 1, 2007, sales occurring a year or more after that date may not be reflective of the January 2007 market.

The bottom line on the evidentiary value of realtor’s lists of property is there is no probative value, without the information being properly analyzed and utilized in an appraisal.The Hearing Officer has no established methodology for taking such data and converting it into an indicated value for a given property.

Exhibit B – Hampton House of Liquors Information

The documents contained in this exhibit consist of a September 22, 2008 letter from the President of the St. Louis Hills Neighborhood Association to neighbors and a summary of Citation and Violations for Hampton House of Liquor.The Exhibit B documents are hearsay.The subject of the letter is a petition to deny the continuance of a liquor license for the Hampton House of Liquor.The Hampton House of Liquor is located at 5013 – 5025 Hampton.This is just one door from the subject at the corner of Itaska and Hampton.

No foundation was laid as to what extent the location of the liquor store might devalue Ms. Harker’s property.A factor such as this is a matter of a great degree of speculation in appraising an impacted property.Without a paired sales analysis, any adjustment for this factor is based on an appraiser’s subjective opinion instead of an objective basis.In other words, the documents provide no dollar basis to assist in the valuation of Complainant’s property.The history of citations and violations for the liquor store does nothing to inform the Hearing Officer as to the impact on fair market value of the property under appeal.

Mr. Carter did not make a specific adjustment to his comparable properties for the subject’s close proximity to the liquor store.The sale comparables are located from three-fourths to a block from Hampton House of Liquors.The Hearing Officer is of the opinion that a location adjustment was warranted.

However, the Hearing Officer also notes that the indicated values of the sale comparables are $321,300, $347,400 and $389,000.The range, median and mean of these values supports a value in excess of the $303,500 settled on by the Appraiser.Even allowing for an adjustment of $15,000 or more for the subject’s proximity to the liquor store, would still support a value of $303,500.In other words, the Carter appraisal made a de facto adjustment by concluding on the $303,500 value in the face of market evidence of a value closer to $340,000 to $350,000.The Hearing Officer is persuaded that the indicated value of $303,530 set by the Board accounts for any negative influence on the subject from the liquor store.

Exhibit C – 2002 Appraisal Report

The final exhibit offered by Ms. Harker was the December, 2002 Appraisal Report.This report concluded on a value as of 12/23/02 of $183,000.The exhibit was excluded as hearsay.It was also not relevant as to the appraisal date.Without the appraiser being present to testify no foundation was laid for its admission into the record.

Appraisal reports with a valuation date relevant to the valuation date in an appeal generally constitute substantial and persuasive evidence.However, if the appraiser is not present at the evidentiary hearing to lay the foundation for admission of the appraisal, it is excluded, as was done in this instance.

Furthermore, Exhibit C provided no basis for Complainant’s opinion of fair market value.It is obvious Ms. Harker believed her home to be worth far more in January of 2007 than the value concluded in the appraisal report.Consequently, it was of no probative benefit in the appeal.

Summary and Conclusion

Complainant failed to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.Complainant’s opinion can be given no probative weight.Complainant’s opinion of value was rebutted by Respondent’s evidence.The presumption of correct assessment by the Board stands.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $57,670.

Complainant 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 for this 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, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO65102-0146, 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. [17]

The Collector of St. Louis City, 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.

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 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, to:Ruth Harker, 5811 Itaska, St. Louis, MO 63109, Complainant; Carl W. Yates III, Associate City Counselor, 314 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103, Attorney for Respondent; Ed Bushmeyer, Assessor, 120 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103; Gregory Daly, Collector, 110 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator