3M v. Cherie Roberts, Assessor Vernon County

June 18th, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

3M COMPANY	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal Number 13-90500
	)
CHERIE K. ROBERTS, ASSESSOR,	)
VERNON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On June 18, 2015, Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan, entered her Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the Board of Equalization value for tax years 2013 and 2014 and setting a new commercial value of $5,900,000 (assessed value $1,888,000). Agricultural property valued at $12,350 (assessed value $1,480) was not in dispute. Both Complainant and Respondent were represented by counsel in this appeal.

Respondent timely filed her Application for Review of the Decision on July 20, 2015. Complainant timely filed its Response.

Standard Upon 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. The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request. The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision. The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.

DECISION

Respondent’s Claims of Error

Respondent, through counsel, puts forth the following alleged errors in the Decision.

The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer is erroneous and against the weight of the evidence in that the Hearing Officer found that neither party presented market data to support adjustments to vacant building sales when in fact Respondent’s appraiser’s adjustments for vacant buildings was supported by his sales grid for leased building.

The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer is erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, constitutes an abuse of discretion and is contrary to Missouri law in that she found that both appraisers presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the fair market value as of January 1, 2013, to be $5,900,000. The Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the proper sales price was $7.36 per square foot was based upon a sale that was not a comparable in Complainant’s appraiser’s report. Said Wisconsin sale was not an appropriate comparable inasmuch as it was in poor condition at the time of sale unlike the subject property. Because substantial adjustments would have been required to make the Wisconsin property comparable, and because no such adjustments were made, reliance upon the Wisconsin sale was arbitrary and capricious. With appropriate adjustments, the Wisconsin sale would indicate a value of $8,000,000.

The Hearing Officer’s reliance upon a single sale, which was not adjusted in any way, without adequate information and without allowing the parties to bring in additional information, was an abuse of discretion.

Discussion and Rulings

First, neither the Hearing Officer nor the State Tax Commission is obligated to adopt or believe the opinions of an expert witness. Neither the Hearing Officer nor the Commission can ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005). The Hearing Officer and the Commission, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as they may deem it is entitled, if any. The Hearing Officer and Commission are 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). This is the present law in Missouri. The Hearing Officer utilized her discretion in determining what parts of each expert’s testimony and appraisal reports to deem credible and reliable. Just like a jury, the Hearing Officer is the trier of fact and is not bound to what either counsel in a proceeding deem appropriate for the trier of fact to believe.

The Hearing Officer stated, “Respondent and Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of June 2, 2013, to be $5,900,000 for the subject property.” The valuation utilized by the Hearing Officer, after a careful and thorough review of the evidence, fell well within an appropriate and reasonable range.

We note that Respondent’s appraiser indicated that his comparables “were too diverse to pair for adjustments. Therefore, most of the adjustment amounts are based on our experience of the market and judgment”. Ex. 2, p. 51. As the Hearing Officer noted, we can give no weight to adjustments that are not based upon market data. We also specifically question Respondent’s unsubstantiated 25% upward adjustment for occupancy. An occupied structure may warrant an adjustment over an unoccupied structure because of the mere fact of occupation may render the structure in better condition, where a vacant building may not receive the same level of maintenance. However, the fact that a business is being conducted in the structure is not an appropriate basis for adjustment. It is the appraiser’s responsibility to provide sufficient market data to support such a condition conclusion.

The Hearing Officer found the valuation to be within a range of $3.91 to $14.55 per square foot. Utilizing the appraisal information presented, including the “cross check sale” (Ex. A, p. 117) of $7.36 per square foot, the Hearing Officer concluded on a valuation of $5,900,000. Respondent cannot now argue that such reliance was inappropriate or that Respondent could not have rebutted the reliability of this sale at hearing, especially in light of the fact the Decision reflects a much more in depth analysis by the Hearing Officer than Respondent’s counsel attempts to portray. Complainant clearly indicated that this sale was considered as a “comparable sale” and that same was in a better location and condition to the subject. Additionally, Complainant indicated that its comparables had a mid range of $7.62 per square foot before adjustments (Ex. A, p. 87), which provides further support for the Hearing Officer’s value.

Summary and Conclusion

The appraisal of property is not an exact science. The more market based information provided by the appraisers, the better decision a Hearing Officer can make. However, after review of the evidence presented, it is clear that the Hearing Officer made a considered and well reasoned determination of value based upon the evidence she was given, after a thorough and complete review and analysis of the evidence. The State Tax Commission has reviewed the record which is properly before it and finds that there was no error made.

Respondent has failed to state any error warranting a change in the Hearing Officer’s value.

ORDER

The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is AFFIRMED and 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 Vernon 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.

STATE TAX COMMISSION

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Randy Holman, Commissioner

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 5th day of January, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax

State Tax Commission of Missouri

3M,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal Number 13-90500
	)
CHERIE ROBERTS, ASSESSOR,	)
VERNON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $5,900,000. ($1,888,000 commercial assessed value). (The Assessor also appraised property at $12,350, an agricultural assessed value of $1,480. This valuation is not in dispute.)

Complainant appeared by attorney Thomas Caradonna.

Respondent appeared in person and by counsel Patricia Hughes.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals the commercial assessment only, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Vernon 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, 2013. 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 Vernon County Board of Equalization.
Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on April 21, 2015 in Vernon County, Missouri.
Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number 18-2-10-001-001-001-000. It is further identified as 2120 E Austin Blvd, Nevada, Missouri.
Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of approximately 140 acres of land with an industrial building of 799,220 square feet. The property includes 32,135 square feet of office space. The original improvements were constructed in 1970 with additions in 1974, 1979, 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1998. The property has 645,000 square feet on the main floor with an additional 150,000 square feet of mezzanine space. Most of the space has clear height ranges from 12 to 26 feet. Due to the piecemeal basis of development, the property has over 40 separate buildings. The property has unique features due to the type of manufacturing by the owner. The features include steam heat and chilled water cooling, air cleaning, fire suppression system with a pump house and two water tanks, cafeteria, auditorium, clubhouse, warehouse and waste water system. The property has 23 dock doors.
Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $11,034,150, an assessed commercial value of $3,530,920. The Board of Equalization sustained the assessment. (The Assessor also appraised property at $12,350, an agricultural assessed value of $1,480. This valuation is not in dispute.)
Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A is an appraisal report. Exhibit B is the written direct testimony of Certified Appraiser Paul Bakken. Both exhibits were admitted in to evidence. The appraiser’s final conclusion of value was $4,000,000.
No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, therefore the assessed value for 2013 remains the assessed value for 2014. Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1-26 and C. Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and C were admitted into evidence. The remaining exhibits were excluded from evidence based upon objections raised by the Complainant and ruled upon by Order dated September 12, 2014. Exhibit 1 is the written direct testimony of Certified Appraiser Joe Roberts. Exhibit 2 is the Appraisal Report of Joe Roberts. Exhibit 4 is the property record card. Exhibit 5 is a building permit application; except for page 1, the exhibit was admitted in to evidence. Exhibit 7 is market data comparison analysis. Exhibit C is a layout diagram of the improvements with Appraiser Bakken’s notes. The appraiser’s final conclusion of value was $10,440,000.
Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – Value Established. The evidence presented by Complainant and Respondent was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and supports the determination that the property’s fair market value as of January 1, 2014 was $5,900,000.

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. 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; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% 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). 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. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Complainant’s appraisal was 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. 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).

“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:

buyer and seller are typically motivated;

both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests;

a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

payment is made in terms of cash in United State dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.” Property Assessment Valuation, IAAO, pp 18-19.

“In reviewing the definition, the following important points regarding market value should be noted:

It is the most probable price. It is not the highest, lowest or average price.
It is expressed in terms of money.
It implies reasonable time for exposure to the market.
It implies that both buyer and seller are informed of the uses to which the property may be put.
It requires an arm’s-length transaction in the open market.
It requires a willing buyer and a willing seller, with no advantage being taken by either buyer or seller. (emphasis added)
It recognizes the present use as well as the potential use of the property.”

Property Assessment Valuation, IAAO, pp 18-19

The definition also refers to “buyer and seller are typically motivated.” The Respondent argues that such excludes any seller which might be under duress to sell which she equates to anyone selling an industrial building not currently in use. Respondent does not include in her exclusion that a seller “typically motivated” would not include one that would not consider selling the property due to its use value to the owner of the property. 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). There is a distinction from a “typically motivated” seller and one under duress as well and one that has not considered selling because the property has a high use value.

Comparison of Value in Exchange and Value in Use

True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Mo. App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973)

“Value in exchange” or “exchange value” is defined as “[t]he value of a commodity in terms of money to persons generally, as distinguished from use value to a specific person.” The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition, Appraisal Institute, 1993, at 125. An exchange value is an objective value determined by transactions between buyers and sellers in the open market.

“Value in use” or “use value” is defined as “the value a specific property has for a specific use” (Ibid., at 383) and “the value of property which reflects a value to a specific user, recognizing the extent to which the property contributes to the personal requirements of the owner.” The Appraisal of Personal Property, American Society of Appraisers, 1994 at 2.

A use value is a subjective value of an owner, user, or potential owner based solely upon his or her personal needs for the property. “In estimating use value, the appraiser focuses on the value the real estate contributes to the enterprise of which it is a part, without regard to the highest and best use of the property or the monetary amount that might be realized from its sale. …An older factory that is still used by the original firm may have considerable use value to that firm but only a nominal market value for another use.” The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12^th Edition, Appraisal Institute.

Relevance

The principle of relevance is a critical evidentiary factor that must be considered when testimony and documents are tendered for admission into an evidentiary record. For facts, information or opinions to be relevant they must be connected in a logical manner and tend to prove or disprove a matter that is at issue in the proceeding. Black’s, supra – relevant, p. 1293. McCormick explains that “[t]here are two components to relevant evidence: materiality and probative value. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issues of the case. If the evidence is offered to help prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue, the evidence is immaterial. . . . The second aspect of relevance is probative value, the tendency of evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.” McCormick, supra – p. 541. Evidence, that tends to prove or disprove a fact that is at issue or of consequence, is relevant. Missouri Practice, supra – p. 95.

In appeals on the value of property, the issue is what a willing buyer and willing seller would have agreed to as the purchase price on the applicable valuation date

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).

Methods of Valuation

Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission. It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). 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. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and 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 may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).

If 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 on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.

The primary issue in this valuation was the comparables and adjustments based upon whether the building would be occupied or vacant at the time of the sale. The Respondent made an upward adjustment to any sales of vacant property. (The 25% upward adjustment was not established from market data.) The Respondent stated in his appraisal that most industrial buildings sell as vacant. Occupied buildings sell to buyers looking for manufacturing operations. Occupied buildings on the market are selling the business, the real property and equipment. The “as-is” price of an occupied business would include work force, profits, patents and trade secrets, and proprietary information. The Respondent’s appraiser surmised this would be especially true for the 3M property as sellers would be interested in the long-standing, profitable business operation of the Complainant. Respondent stated in his report that appraisers do not use occupied properties in their appraisals as the real estate, personal property and business enterprise value must be allocated and such is subjective judgment.

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). Such is not the case if valuing the property “as-is” rather than as most appraisers would which is as vacant.

Both appraisers reviewed numerous sales of industrial buildings to conclude an opinion of value. The Complainant’s appraiser’s comparable sales ranged from $3.19 to $6.22 per square foot. The Respondent’s appraiser’s comparables ranged from $2.04 to $70.35. (The property which sold for $70.35 per square foot subsequently sold for $20.99) After removing the highest and lowest price per square foot, the range was from $8.40 to $14.55. The market indicates a range of value for the subject property between $2.04 and $70.35 per square foot with the most likely sales price being between $3.91 and $14.55 per square foot.

Both appraisers made adjustments to their comparables. Neither party presented market information to support their adjustments. Respondent’s appraiser states in his appraisal that “most of the adjustment amounts are based on our experience of the market and judgment.” The State Tax Commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).

Although the adjustments to the sales were subjective or lacking market data, the range provides a support for a valuation of the subject property of $5,900,000. The most persuasive sale was the sale presented as a cross check of the value finding of the Complainant’s appraiser. The Complainant’s appraiser presented a sale of a manufacturing property of 677,915 sf which sold in July 2013 for $7.36 per sf. The sale, which due to the date of the sale (marketed at the end of 2012 and the sale was final July 2013) was not included on his grid, was presented as a cross-check for the finding of value. The per square foot price falls within the valuation ranges presented by each appraiser and is close in time and size and other qualities making in a persuasive comparable for the subject. Using the $7.36 per square foot price of that sale, which is supported by the sales comparison approaches of the appraisers, the resulting value for the subject property is $5,882,259.20, say $5,900,000.

Value

Respondent and Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2013, to be $5,900,000 for the subject property. In reviewing the appraisals, the appraisers developed opinions of value relying upon an established and recognized approaches for the valuation of real property. The sales comparison approach was the most persuasive.

ORDER

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

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 Vernon 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 18th day of June, 2015.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer