Ameen Bajwa v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

May 25th, 2018



              Complainant, )  
v. ) Appeal No. 17-110869


Parcel/Locator No.












The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED.  Complainant Bajwa Ameen (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.


The evidentiary hearing in this case was scheduled for 11:00 a.m., May 14, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building in Clayton, Missouri.  Complainant failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing and failed to prosecute the appeal.  Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by Counsel Steve Robson, who announced ready for trial.  Case decided by Chief Counsel, Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer).


Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation.  Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $93,600, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017.  The BOE found the TVM to be $93,600 as of January 1, 2017.  The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TVM for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.

The Hearing Officer enters the following Decision and Order.


  1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
  2. The subject property is located at 1244 Highway 109, Glencoe, Missouri. The property is identified by Parcel/Locator number 21W320051.
  3. By Order dated February 15, 2018, this case was scheduled an Evidentiary Hearing for 11:00 a.m., May 14, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri. The February 15, 2018 Order informed Complainant that if he could not attend the evidentiary hearing and needed a continuance a request must be made in writing and filed with the Commission no later than five days before the date of the hearing.
  4. Complainant failed to appear at the hearing on May 14, 2018 and did not file any request for a continuance of the Evidentiary Hearing.  Complainant did not communicate with the Hearing Officer or the STC that he would not be attending the Evidentiary Hearing as scheduled.
  5. At 11:00 a.m., on May 14, 2018, the Evidentiary Hearing was commenced at the designated time and location. Complainant did not appear.  Respondent appeared by counsel, who announced ready for trial.  Counsel for Respondent presented the BOE Decision dated September 20, 2017.
  6. Following a grace period for Complainant to appear, the matter was placed on the record for the entry of decision noting Complainant’s failure to appear and to prosecute the appeal and affirming the decision of the BOE.



The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement.  The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying, or reversing the determination of the BOE 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.

Presumptions In Appeals

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).  In order to prevail, complainants must rebut the presumption of correct assessment by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on the tax day at issue.  Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).  There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct.  In an appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer still bears the burden of proof because the taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.  Therefore, a Complainant must prove by a preponderance of substantial and persuasive the evidence 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, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).


Complainant failed to prosecute the appeal and failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVM of the subject property was correct.  The BOE’s determination that the TVM of the subject property was $93,600, as of January 1, 2017, is AFFIRMED.

Application for Review

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 may result in summary denial.  Section 138.432 RSMo 2000.

The Collector of St. 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 2000, as amended.

Any Finding of Fact that is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed.  Any Decision that is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED May 25, 2018.


Maureen Monaghan

Chief Counsel

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 25th day of May, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.


Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator