State Tax Commission of Missouri
BRENDA MOORE, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 10-66001
)
KEVIN BISHOP, ASSESSOR, )
LINCOLN COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Assessments of Complainant’s motor vehicles by the Assessor are AFFIRMED.
True value in money for the Mazda for tax year 2010 is set at $3,270, a personal property assessment of $1,090. True value in money for the Tahoe for tax year 2010 is set at $16,110 personal property assessment of $5,370. True value in money for the Silverado for tax year 2010 is set at $16,920, a personal property assessment of $5,640.
Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared pro se.
Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the valuation of the subject personal property (motor vehicles) by the Respondent. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the motor vehicles under appeal on January 1, 2010. 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. Appeal was submitted on exhibits.[1]
2. Subject Property and Assessment. The property in this appeal consists of three motor vehicles: (1) 2001 Mazda B3000 SE; (2) 2005 Tahoe (4WD); and (3) 2008 Silverado 1500.
The Assessor appraised the Mazda at $3,270, a personal property assessment of $1090.[2]
The Assessor appraised the Tahoe at $16,110, a personal property assessment of $5,370.
The Assessor appraised the Silverado at $16,920, a personal property assessment of $5,640.
4. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant filed the following exhibits which were received into evidence. By Order issued January 24, 2011, Complainant was given until and including February 17, 2011, to submit her narrative statement of Complainant’s opinion of value for the property under appeal and the basis for the opinion of value. Complainant did not submit any narrative statement in response to the Order.
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
List of Automobiles Under Appeal |
|
B |
2009 & 2010 Lincoln County Personal Property Tax Statements |
|
C |
NADAguides.com Price Report – 2008 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 |
|
D |
NADAguides.com Price Report – 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe |
|
E |
Bell & Osborn Auto Body – Preliminary Estimate 2005 Tahoe |
|
F |
Bell & Osborn Auto Body – Preliminary Estimate 2001 Mazda |
Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2010, of each of the motor vehicles. See, Complainant Fails To Prove Value, infra.
5. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent filed the following exhibits which were received into evidence.
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Front of Complainant’s 2010 Assessment Form |
|
2 |
Back of Complainant’s 2010 Assessment Form |
|
3 |
Complainant’s 2010 Personal Duplicate Paid Tax Receipt |
|
4 |
NADA October 2010 Value – 2005 Tahoe |
|
5 |
NADA October 2010 Value – 2008 Silverado |
|
6 |
NADA October 2010 Value – 2001 Mazda |
|
7 |
2001 Mazda Values – St. Charles County Valuation Guide |
|
8 |
2005 Chevrolet Tahoe – St. Charles County Valuation Guide |
|
9 |
2008 Chevrolet Silverado – St. Charles County Valuation Guide |
|
10 |
Section 137.115 Revised Statutes of Missouri |
|
11 |
Respondent’s Narrative Statement – Testimony |
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.[3]
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.[4] 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.[5] In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed must
be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.
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.[6] True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[7] It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[8] 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.[9]
Complainant Fails To Prove Value
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, 2010.[10] 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.”[11]
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[12] 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.[13]
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[14] The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[15]
Opinion of Value – Mazda
Ms. Moore gives her opinion of the market value for the Mazda to be $2,284. This was calculated by subtracting $986 from the Assessor’s appraised value of $3,270. The owner concurs the value of $3,270 is correct but for the cost of repairs to the vehicle (Exhibit F) The problem is that the only date on the repair estimate is 11/24/10. There is no date of loss on the estimate. The Hearing Officer has no evidence on the record that establishes that the damage that is the subject of the repair estimate existed on the vehicle as of January 1, 2010.
A taxpayer does not meet her burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.”[16] On this critical element there is only speculation as to the condition of the vehicle on January 1, 2010. Accordingly, the owner failed to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence that in the condition the car existed on January 1, 2010, that it was damaged to the extent of $986, requiring the adjustment that is proposed.
Opinion of Value – Tahoe
Ms. Moore concluded a value for the Tahoe of $11,352. This was based on an NADA Average Trade-In value of $13,300, less a cost of repairs of $1,948. Two problems exist with the owner’s opinion of value on this vehicle. First, the NADA value is from a date of 11/15/10. This is eleven and a half months after the 2010 valuation date. Therefore no probative weight can be given to the opinion of value based upon an erroneous valuation date. Second, the repair estimate is from an inspection on 11/23/10. Here again, the evidence does not establish the condition of the vehicle on January 1, 2010. There is no evidence to establish that as of
January 1, 2010, the condition of the vehicle included the damage that was estimated for repair on 11/23/10. Like with the Mazda, the Hearing Officer can only speculate as to the value of the Tahoe on January 1, 2010.
Opinion of Value – Silverado
The owner’s opinion of value for the Silverado is also based on a NADA value from 11/15/10. Complainant presented no evidence on this vehicle to establish value as of January 1, 2010. The burden of proof was not met.
Conclusion
Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence addressing the issue of the market value of the motor vehicles as of January 1, 2010. The owner’s opinions of value were not based upon proper elements or a proper foundation. No probative weight can be given to the opinions of value tendered by Ms. Moore. Accordingly, the values set by the Assessor are affirmed.
The statutory guideline for Assessor in assessing motor vehicles is to utilize the October valuation guide.[17] This provides for consistency and uniformity in the valuation of motor vehicles in any given county and within the state. Respondent’s evidence established that he had performed his statutory duty relative to the assessment of Complainant’s motor vehicles in conformity with the guidelines of the applicable law.
ORDER
The assessed valuations for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for the subject tax day are AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the 2010 tax year for the Mazda is set at $1,090.
The assessed value for the 2010 tax year for the Tahoe is set at $5,370.
The assessed value for the 2010 tax year for the Silverado is set at $5,640.
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. [18]
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Lincoln 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. If no Application for Review is filed with the Commission within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service, the Collector, 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.
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 March 14, 2011.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
_____________________________________
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 14th day of March, 2011, to: Brenda Moore, 4077 Owen Station Road, Moscow Mills, MO 63362, Complainant; G. John Richards, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 319, 45 Business Park Drive Troy, MO 63379, Attorney for Respondent; Kevin Bishop, Assessor, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379; Rick Wilcockson, Clerk, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379; Jerry Fox, Collector, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
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
[2] Personal property is assessed at 33 1/3 of true value in money (fair market value), Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo
[6] 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).
[7] 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).
[9] 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.
[11] 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).
[14] Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).
[15] Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).