Alton James Amos v. Hoover (Jasper)

December 2nd, 2009

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

ALTON JAMES AMOS,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal Number 09-62521

)

CONNIE HOOVER, ASSESSOR,)

JASPER COUNTY,MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Hearing Officer finds Complainants did not rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Jeremy Crowley.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, 2009.

SUMMARY


Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.The Board of Equalization determined a true value of $143,130, assessed value of $24,940, as residential property, and $1,420, as agricultural property.Complainant did not propose a value.A hearing was conducted on November 19, 2009, at the Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, Missouri.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

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


2.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant testified on his own behalf.He stated that he is not contesting the valuation but his belief that his property value was increased by 30% since the 2007 assessment.

3.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 – valuation data and the testimony of Lisa Perry, Administrative Assistant to Respondent.

Exhibit 1 consisted of the following documents:Property Record Card and photographs of subject; Locator Map for comparable properties; Property Record Card and photograph for three comparable properties.Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.

4.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 8770 County Lane 216, Webb City, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 15-3-5-00-000-005.

5.No New Construction and Improvement.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to the date of the hearing.

6.Complainant Failed to Meet Burden of Proof.Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment 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]

Presumptions In Appeals

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


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.[3]

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]

 

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.[7]

Complainants’ Burden of Proof


The taxpayer in a Commission appeal bears the burden of proof.The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.When Complainant fails to meet his burden of proof, the valuation by the Board must be affirmed.Complainant’s only ground of appeal was that the true value of his property increased by 30% from the assessment year 2007 to assessment year 2009.Complainant’s ground for appeal is not a recognized ground of appeal.The Assessor is mandated to set properties at market value.If the valuation increases, the Assessor is required to notify the property owner so that they may avail themselves to the appeal process to review the valuation of their property; if the valuation increases by more than 15%, the Assessor is required to conduct a physical inspection[8].The Complainant was notified of the increase in valuation of his property and he availed himself to the appeal process. Further, the Assessor produced the assessment records from 2007 and 2009 on the subject property.The subject property’s valuation in 2007 was $143,120; the valuation set by the Board of Equalization in 2009 was $143,130.


ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2009 is set at $24,940 residential and $1,420 as agricultural.

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. [9]

The Collector of Jasper 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 2, 2009.

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 2ndday of December, 2009, to:Alton Amos, 8770 Co. Lane 216, Webb City, MO 64870, Complainant; Jeremy Crowley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 601 Pearl, Room 100, Joplin, MO 64801, Attorney for Respondent; Connie Hoover, Assessor, 302 S. Main Street, Carthage, MO 64836; Bonnie Earl, Clerk; Stephen Holt, Collector, Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, MO 64836.

 

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

 

 


 


[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] 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).

 

[5] Hermel, supra.

 

[6] Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; See also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.

 

[7] 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).

 

[8] Sections 137.180 and 137.115, RSMo.

 

[9] Section 138.432, RSMo.