STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|1340 E 9TH STREET REALTY CORP, ET AL,
|Appeal No. 21-30020, et al
Parcel/locator No(s): Appendix A
|GAIL MCCANN-BEATTY, ASSESSOR,
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,
DECISION AND ORDER
1340 E 9th Street Realty Corp and a number of other property owners (Complainants) appeal the Jackson County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decisions determining the true value in money (TVM) of the subject commercial properties as of January 1, 2021. Complainants did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence of overvaluation. The BOE’s decision is affirmed.
The evidentiary hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Respondent timely appeared at the evidentiary hearing, through counsel, Jennifer Ware. Complainants did not appear. Counsel for Complainants, Michael LeVota, did not appear. Complainants did not seek a continuance or otherwise communicate any intent to proceed with the appeal.
Complainants Did Not Prove Overvaluation
The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued. Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Complainants did not appear at the evidentiary hearing and produced no evidence to support the overvaluation claim. Complainants’ failure to appear and present any evidence necessarily means Complainants fail to meet Complainants’ burden of proof. 
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The BOE’s decision is affirmed. The TVM of the subject properties as of January 1, 2021, is set forth in the attached appendix.
Application for Review
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the certificate of service for this decision. The application “shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.” Section 138.432. The application must be in writing, and may be mailed to the State Tax Commission, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, or emailed to Legal@stc.mo.gov. A copy of the application must be sent to each person 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.
The Collector of Jackson 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.
SO ORDERED March 25, 2022.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Erica M. Gage
Senior Hearing Officer
State Tax Commission
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on March 25th, 2022, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
|Appeal No.||Complainant||Parcel Locator No.||BOE VALUE|
|21-30020||1340 E 9th Street Realty Corp||45-210-03-17-02-0-00-000||$120,000|
|21-30021||1340 E 9th Street Realty Corp||45-120-11-25-00-0-00-000||$62,000|
|21-30022||1340 E 9th Street Realty Corp||45-120-10-10-00-0-00-000||$48,000|
|21-30023||1340 E 9th Street Realty Corp||45-120-11-22-00-0-00-000||$40,500|
|21-30024||Peak Smiles LLC||61-420-04-33-00-0-00-000||$720,000|
|21-30025||Chastain Wolf Properties LLC||52-900-31-18-00-0-00-000||$800,000|
|21-30026||DHA PROPERTIES LLC||25-440-13-01-00-0-00-000||$1,200,000|
|21-30027||DHA PROPERTIES LLC||25-440-01-37-02-0-00-000||$1,344,000|
Complainant timely filed a complaint for review of assessment. The State Tax Commission (STC) has authority to hear and decide Complainant’s appeal. Mo. Const. art. X, Section 14; section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as amended.
 For over 150 years, Missouri law has recognized the self-evident proposition that “if there be no evidence sufficient in law to make a prima facie case on this issue, plaintiff cannot be entitled to recover.” Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131, 135 (Mo. 1867).