9200 Corporation v. Brooks (SLCO)

August 11th, 2010

State Tax Commission of Missouri






v.)Appeal No. 09-10629












Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Respondent moved for dismissal alleging the Complainant did not have standing as the Complainant did not own the property and failed to pay property taxes in 2007, 2008 and 2009; the true owner of the property has paid all taxes due.Decision rendered and Appeal dismissed by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.


Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis 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 properties on January 1, 2009.





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

2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $56,100, residential assessed value of $10,660.The Board of Equalization reduced the appraised value to $35,000, residential assessed value of $6,650.

3.Subject Properties.The subject property is identified by map parcel number 15J340411.

4.Non-Compliance with Order.By Order issued July 27, 2010, Complainant was ordered to file with the Commission a response to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.Respondent filed their motion due to the Complainant not paying property taxes in 2007, 2008, and 2009, Complainant not owning the property, and the true owner paying all past due taxes and not seeking to appeal the valuation.By said order, Complainant was to file a response with the Commission on or before August 6, 2010.Complainant failed to comply with the order.



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 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]Taxpayer failed to present any evidence in the appeal.Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment for the subject property stands.

Dismissal of Appeal

A Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the orders and rules of the Commission and failure of prosecution.[4]Appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the orders and rules of the Commission and failure of prosecution.


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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $6,650.

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, 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. [5]

If the parties have settled the appeal by stipulation, Complainant may file its Motion to Set Aside this Decision, within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service.A Motion to Set Aside must be accompanied by the executed stipulation for the appeal.

The Collector ofSt. 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 August 11, 2010.





Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer




Certificate of Service


I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 11th day of August, 2010, to:Gordon Webb, #7 The Orchards Lane, St. Louis, MO63132, Attorney for Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Attorney for Respondent; Michael Brooks, ActingAssessor, 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



Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri – State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102


573-751-1341 FAX



[1] Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.


[2] 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).


[3] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).


[4] 12 CSR 30-3.050 (3) (C), (D) & (E).


[5] Section 138.432, RSMo.