State Tax Commission of Missouri
| EDWARD & PATRICIA CROWELL, |
) |
|
| |
) |
|
| Complainants, |
) |
|
| |
) |
|
| v. |
) |
Appeal No. 15-79003 |
| |
) |
|
| DAVID COX, ASSESSOR, |
) |
|
| PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, |
) |
|
| |
) |
|
| Respondent. |
) |
|
DECISION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On December 21, 2015, Senior Hearing Officer John J. Treu (Senior Hearing Officer) entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Board of Equalization of Platte County (BOE), which sustained the assessed value for the subject property (the Property) for tax year 2015 at $40,025.
Edward and Patricia Crowell (Complainants) subsequently filed their Application for Review of the Decision with the State Tax Commission (the Commission). David Cox, Assessor of Platte County, (Respondent) filed his Response. Complainants filed their Reply.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard of Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4). The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5). The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the decision and order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the commission. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).
The Senior 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. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974). The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Senior Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968). Likewise, the Commission is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the Commission deems them entitled.
The Commission, having reviewed the record and having considered the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer and the briefs of the parties, enters its Decision and Order. Segments of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision have been incorporated into our Decision and Order without further reference.
DECISION
Complainants’ Points on Review
Complainants assert the following points in support of their Application for Review:
- The Senior Hearing Officer erred in rejecting Complainants’ argument that the Respondent’s imposition of an increased assessment of the Property in 2008, absent any new construction or improvements in the previous odd numbered year, 2007, violated Section 137.115.1 and was, therefore, an illegal exercise of Respondent’s taxing authority and was void ab initio.
- The Senior Hearing Officer erred in rejecting Complainant’s argument that Respondent’s determination regarding the Property’s increase in true market value violated Complainants’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the dictates of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County, 488 U.S. 336 (1989), in that the valuation was the result of discrimination.
Commission’s Decision
For the reasons set forth below in response to the Points just stated, the Commission finds the Claimants’ arguments to be not persuasive to warrant either a modification or overturning of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision.
Factual and Procedural History
The Property, a 3,528-square-foot tract of land improved by a 1,644 square-foot, single-family residence, was originally built in approximately 1910. (SHO Decision/Order 2; Resp. Appraisal Report) Prior to 2007, the Property was extensively repaired, renovated, and altered. (Complainants’ Exh. A, C, E)
The Property was sold in December 2007 for $234,000, and Respondent subsequently reassessed the Property. (App. For Rev. 7) The 2008 assessed value was applied to the Property from 2008 through 2014. (Id.) In November 2014, Complainants purchased the Property for $230,000. (App. For Rev. 1) On January 1, 2015, Respondent reassessed the Property, valuing it at $210,660, an assessed residential value of $40,025. (SHO Decision/Order 2; Complaint for Review of Assessment)
Complainants appealed Respondent’s $210,660 valuation of the Property to the BOE. (Complaint for Review of Assessment) The BOE held a hearing at which Complainants and Respondent presented evidence as to the fair market value (FMV) of the Property. On July 23, 2015, the BOE issued a decision affirming Respondent’s FMV of the Property for 2015 at $210,660. (BOE Decision)
On September 8, 2015, Complainants filed a Complaint for Review of Assessment with the Commission alleging discrimination. On December 10, 2015, the Senior Hearing Officer conducted the evidentiary hearing in which Complainant introduced the following exhibits into evidence:
| Exhibit A |
Building Permits and Occupancy Permit |
| Exhibit B |
Assessment History of Subject Property from 2001-2014 |
| Exhibit C |
Building Permits on Adjacent Property |
| Exhibit D |
Web-shot from Platte County Website |
| Exhibit E |
Email from Respondent Cox to Complainant Edward Crowell |
| Exhibit F |
Email from Complainants to Respondent Cox |
| Exhibit G |
Letter from Respondent Cox to Complainants |
| Exhibit H |
Record Card on Subject Property |
| Exhibit I |
Sales and Assessment History of Subject Property and Others and Appraisal Report |
| Exhibit J |
Summary of Various Properties Tax Per Square Feet |
Respondent objected to Exhibits A, B, I, and J as irrelevant. Respondent objected to Exhibits E and F as privileged settlement negotiations. (SHO Decision/Order 3) The Senior Hearing Officer overruled the objections and received the exhibits subject to the weight, if any, each exhibit would be given. (Id.) Complainants did not offer any statistically-based evidence or expert testimony to support their claim of discrimination. (Id.) Respondent did not offer any exhibits. (Id.) Notably, Complainants did not dispute the FMV that Respondent had attributed to the Property and that the BOE had affirmed. (Id.)
On December 21, 2015, the Senior Hearing Officer entered his Decision affirming the BOE’s FMV of the Property. The Senior Hearing Officer found that Complainants had failed to meet their burden of proving their claim of discrimination. Specifically, the Senior Hearing Officer found that:
- Respondent appraised the property at $210,660 on January 1, 2015, resulting in an assessed value of $40,025;
- The BOE affirmed Respondent’s valuation of the Property of $210,660;
- Complainants had the burden of proving the level of assessment for the Property in 2015 by independently determining the market value of the Property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the Property as set by Respondent;
- Complainants also had the burden of proving the average level of assessment for residential property in Platte County for 2015 by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Platte County in 2015, (b) determining the assessed value placed on those properties 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; and
- Complainants were further required to prove that the difference between the actual assessment level of the Property and the average level of assessment for all residential property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Platte County, was grossly excessive.
The Senior Hearing Officer concluded that, based on the evidence presented, Complainants had failed to demonstrate that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Platte County were being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than the Property in 2015. (SHO Decision/Order 7) The Senior Hearing Officer concluded that Complainants had based their claim of discrimination on approximately 40 other properties that were contained in Exhibits I and J, but these exhibits did not establish the market value on January 1, 2015, of any of these other properties. (Id. At 8) The Senior Hearing Officer further concluded that Complainants’ evidence did not establish that the number of properties to which they had compared their Property was statistically significant. (Id.) The Senior Hearing Officer thereafter affirmed the assessed valuation of the Property as determined by Respondent and sustained by the BOE and ordered the assessed value of the property for tax year 2015 be set at $40,025. (Id.)
2008 Assessment of the Property
Complainants’ first point on review alleges errors with the 2008 assessment of the Property. Although this issue is irrelevant to the claim concerning the 2015 assessment, we will briefly address it for the understanding of Complainants.
Complainants assert that Respondent “illegally” increased the assessment of the Property in 2008. However, Complainants’ exhibits and Application for Review established that Complainants did not own the Property in 2008; a different taxpayer owned the Property in 2008. Complainants purchased the Property in November 2014. Accordingly, Complainants did not have standing to challenge an assessment against a prior owner of the Property that occurred years before Complainants’ purchase of the Property. Complainants do not allege that they had some ownership interest in the Property in 2008. “The longstanding rule in Missouri is that individual taxpayer plaintiffs lack standing to challenge other taxpayers’ property tax assessments, as they are not injured personally by others’ assessment calculations.” See State ex rel. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McBeth, 322 S.W.3d 525, 530 (Mo. banc 2010); see also Bethman v. Faith, 462 S.W.3d 895, 901(Mo. App. E.D. 2015); Adams v. Friganza, 344 S.W.3d 240, 249 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Consequently, the Senior Hearing Officer did not err in rejecting Complainants’ argument that the Respondent’s imposition of an increased assessment of the Property in 2008, absent any new construction or improvements in the previous odd numbered year, 2007, violated Section 137.115.1 and was an illegal exercise of Respondent’s taxing authority and void ab initio. Moreover, even if Complainants had owned the Property in 2008, this claim of improper assessment and the evidence related to it was irrelevant to Complainants’ claim of discrimination in assessment in 2015.
Discrimination
In discrimination appeals, there are only two elements to be established: (1) the fair market value of the subject property on the tax day at issue; and (2) the median assessment ratio by showing either (a) 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 or (b) that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. Zimmerman v. Mid-America Financial Corporation, 2015 WL 7456073 at *5 (Mo. App. E.D.); State ex rel Ashby Road Partners, LLC v State Tax Commission, 297 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Mo banc 2009); Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003.)
In cases where intentional discrimination is not shown, the Commission refrains from correcting assessments that reflect no more than de minimus errors of judgment on the part of assessors. Mid-America Financial Corporation, 2015 WL 7456073 at *5. “Such a standard recognizes that ‘[w]hile practical uniformity is the constitutional goal, absolute uniformity is an unattainable ideal.’” Id., quoting Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78-79. “’A mere overvaluation of a specific property does not establish a discrimination in the absence of a showing of an intentional plan of discrimination or a showing that there is an undervaluation in the average assessment, or that other property generally is undervalued . . . .’” Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78, quoting Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo.1959).
According to the record before us, Complainants did not dispute Respondent’s and the BOE’s determinations as to the FMV of the property. Therefore, the Senior Hearing Officer’s finding of value is not in error.
Having found the first element of the test satisfied, FMV, we turn to the second element of the test – whether intentional discrimination occurred or whether the level of assessment was so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the proper method in analyzing a claim of discrimination compares the median level of assessment for similarly-situated properties – in this appeal, residential properties located in Platte County as of January 1, 2015 – to the actual level of assessment imposed on the property. Respondent applied the statutory 19% assessment ratio to the FMV of $210,660 to arrive at an assessed value of $40,025. However, Complainants did not provide substantial evidence showing that other property in the same general class, residential, was actually undervalued. Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78, quoting Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo.1959). In this case, Complainants’ documentation regarding other properties in Platte County did not establish the FMV of those properties as of January 1, 2015. Complainants did not present the testimony of an expert in statistical analysis to explain their documentation or to establish that the number of properties documented was statistically significant. Consequently, Complainants did not produce persuasive evidence from which the median assessment level of residential properties in Platte County on January 1, 2015, could even be determined. Without such evidence, no comparison between the median level of assessment and the actual level of assessment of the Property could be undertaken. The Senior Hearing Officer correctly and properly found that Complainants failed to establish discrimination.
Summary & Conclusion
A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample 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 Senior Hearing Officer. Mid-America Financial Corporation, 2015 WL 7456073 at *11. 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 Senior Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that he abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. See Drury, Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (proper methods of valuation and assessment of property and determinations of credibility of witnesses before the administrative body are delegated to the Commission, even if evidence would support either of two opposed findings). The Senior Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Respondent.
ORDER
Upon review of the record and Decision and Order in this appeal, the Commission finds no grounds upon which the Decision and Order of the Senior Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed. The Decision and Order of the Senior 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 St. Louis 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 April 26, 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 26 day of April, 2016, to:
Edward and Patricia Crowell, Complainants Acting Pro Se, tedcrowell@gmail.com
JR Shank, Attorney for Respondent, jrshank@gunnshank.com
David Cox, Assessor, Platte County, david.cox@platte.mo.us
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
P.O. Box 146
301 W. High Street, Room 840
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 FAX
State Tax Commission of Missouri
| EDWARD & PATRICIA CROWELL, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
| Complainant(s), |
) |
|
|
) |
|
| v. |
) |
Appeal No. 15-79003 |
|
) |
|
| DAVID COX, ASSESSOR, |
) |
|
| PLATTE CO., MISSOURI, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
| Respondent. |
) |
|
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the County Board of Equalization of Platte County sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to prove discrimination, which was the sole issue in this appeal.
True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at $210,660, residential.
Complainants both appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared in person and by attorney John Shank.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of discrimination, the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2015. The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on December 10, 2015 at the Platte County Administration Building, Platte City, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 20-7.0-35-100-029-001-003 It is further identified as 406 Main Street, Parkville, Platte County, Missouri. (Ex. G, I and Complaint for Review)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 3528 square foot tract of land improved by a single family, residential one and a half story style home of good condition, with 1,644 square feet of living area. Amenities include 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, a single car attached garage, a patio and a porch. (Ex. I)
- Assessment. The Assessor valued the property at $210,660, an assessed residential value of $40,025. The Board of Equalization sustained the assessor’s valuation of the property. (Complaint for Review of Assessment)
6 Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibits A through J. Respondent objected to Exhibits A, B, I and J as irrelevant. Respondent objected to Exhibits E and F as privileged settlement negations. Such objections were overruled, subject to the weight, if any each exhibit would be given. All Exhibits were received into evidence. The Exhibits were as follows:
| Exhibit A |
Building Permits and Occupancy Permit |
| Exhibit B |
Assessment History of Subject Property from 2001-2014 |
| Exhibit C |
Building Permits on Adjacent Property |
| Exhibit D |
Web-shot from Platte County Website |
| Exhibit E |
Email from Respondent Cox to Complainant Edward Crowell |
| Exhibit F |
Email from Complainants to Respondent Cox |
| Exhibit G |
Letter from Respondent Cox to Complainants |
| Exhibit H |
Record Card on Subject Property |
| Exhibit I |
Sales and Assessment History of Subject Property and Others and Appraisal Report |
| Exhibit J |
Summary of Various Properties Tax Per Square Feet |
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered no exhibits.
- True Market Value of Subject Property Not in Dispute. Complainants did not dispute the true market valuation assigned by the Assessor and affirmed by the Board of Equalization of the subject property.
- Discrimination. No statistically based evidence was submitted to prove discrimination. No expert testimony was offered by Complainants.
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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
Basis of Assessment
The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money.
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958). This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.
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, 2015. Hermel, supra. There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission appeal still bears the burden of proof. The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.” See, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).
Standard for Valuation
Section 137.115, RSMo, requires that property be assessed based upon its true value in money which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and bought by one who is willing or desirous to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993).
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo. The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant and Respondent’s appraiser.
Weight to be Given Evidence
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. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as he 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. St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).
Discrimination
In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2015; 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. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690, 695 (Mo. 1959). 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. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property to the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse, supra.
Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination
Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2015. 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.
Complainants must then prove the average level of assessment for residential property in Platte County for 2015. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Platte County in 2015; (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 Platte County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive. Savage, supra.
Complainants’ discrimination claim fails because they failed to demonstrate that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Platte County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property in 2015. Complainants’ claim of discrimination is based on as little as 5 properties (Exhibit I) other than the subject property and at most on 41 properties (Exhibit J) other than the subject property. Complainant did not establish the market value on January 1, 2015 of any of the other properties. Complainant did not establish that the number of properties was statistically significant.
Because Complainants failed to establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value on January 1, 2015 than a statistically significant number of other properties in Platte County on January 1, 2015, they have failed to establish discrimination.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Platte County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at $40,025.
Application for Review
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 facts or law as 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 application for review is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Platte County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible 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 this 21st day of December, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on December 21, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order
Edward and Patricia Crowell, tedcrowell@gmail.com
JR Shank, Attorney for Respondent, jrshank@gunnshank.com
David Cox, Assessor, david.cox@co.platte.mo.us
Collector
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
