State Tax Commission of Missouri
|
BERNARD SCHWEIGER, |
) |
|
|
|
) |
|
|
Complainant(s), |
) |
|
|
|
) |
|
|
v. |
) |
Appeal(s) Number 13-73004 |
|
|
) |
|
|
JIM ANDERSON, ASSESSOR, |
) |
|
|
MORGAN COUNTY, MISSOURI, |
) |
|
|
|
) |
|
|
Respondent. |
) |
|
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Complainant failed to appear at hearing or to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the County.Appeal Dismissed for failure to comply with the rules and orders of the Commission, failure of prosecution, and failure to present a prima facie case for the relief sought.Decision of the Morgan County Assessor is AFFIRMED.
Complainant did not appear at hearing.
Respondent appeared in person.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2013.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.
2.Evidentiary Hearing.The Evidentiary Hearing was set for 10:00 a.m.,
April 1, 2014, at the Morgan County Courthouse.[1]Complainant did not appear for the hearing and did not file a request for continuance of the hearing.[2]
4.Subject Property.The subject property is identified by locator number 15-7.0-35-400-003-003.001.The property is located in Gravois Mills, Missouri.
5.Complainant’s Evidence.No evidence was presented to establish a prima facie case to rebut the presumption of correct assessment. 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.[3]
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.[4]
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.[5]The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[6]In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.
Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainant must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2013.[7]There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission appeal still bears the burden of proof.The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”[8]A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[9]Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief.[10]
Complainant by failing to present supporting evidence for his opinion of value did not meet the required burden of proof.The presumption of correct assessment by the Board stands.
Dismissal of Appeal
The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the rules and orders of the Commission regarding appeals, failure of prosecution, and failure to present evidence to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought.[11]
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for the subject tax day 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 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, 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 application for review is based will result in summary denial. [12]
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Morgan 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 April 10, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
[2] Order dated February 26, 2014 pp. 2 & 3: “If you cannot attend this hearing and need a continuance, you must put your request in writing and give the reason why it is necessary to reschedule the hearing.Your request for continuance must be filed with the State Tax Commission Legal Section at P. O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146 no later than five (5) days before the date of hearing. . . . If you do not appear at the hearing and no request for continuance is made, your appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”
[8] See, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).
[9] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.
Substantial and persuasive evidence is not an extremely high standard of evidentiary proof.It is the lowest of the three standards for evidence (substantial & persuasive, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt).It requires a small amount of evidence to cross the threshold to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.The definitions, relevant to substantial evidence, do not support a position that substantial and persuasive evidence is an extremely or very high standard.
“Substantial evidence: Evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; evidence beyond a scintilla.”Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 580.
The word scintilla is defined as “1. a spark,2. a particle; the least trace.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.Black’s definition at 1347 is “A spark or trace <the standard is that there must be more than a scintilla of evidence>.”There must be more than a spark or trace for evidence to have attained the standard of substantial.Once there is something more than a spark or trace the evidence has reached the level of substantial.Substantial evidence and the term preponderance of the evidence are essentially the same.“Preponderance of the evidence.The greater weight of the evidence; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”Black’s at 1201.Substantial evidence is that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.Preponderance is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, i.e. support the proposed conclusion.