STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|BRUCE E. & CHERYL E. TETRAULT,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 16-10032|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE) is SET ASIDE. Complainants Bruce E. Tetrault and Cheryl E. Tetrault (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainant Cheryl E. Tetrault (Mrs. Tetrault) appeared pro se. Complainant Bruce E. Tetrault did not appear.
Respondent appeared by counsel Steven Robson.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainants appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true market value (TMV) of the subject property, as residential property, at $1,028,000. The BOE sustained Respondent’s valuation at $1,028,000. The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property as the property existed on January 1, 2016, under the economic conditions for January 1, 2015.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on January 18, 2017, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 26T520192. It is further identified as 1298 St. Paul Road, Wildwood, Missouri. (Complaint; Exhibit 1)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of 10.56 acres improved by a 4,820 square-foot, 1.5-story single-family home built in 2008. (Exhibit 1) The subject property includes four bedrooms; three full bathrooms; one half bathroom; a 3,214 square-foot basement with 2,500 square feet of finished area; a four-car attached garage; a deck; a patio; and two fireplaces. (Exhibit 1) The exterior consists of stucco construction. (Exhibit 1) The subject property is located in the western region of St. Louis County in a hilly, wooded, somewhat secluded rural setting but near suburban amenities, such as retail shopping areas. The subject property does not have public water, sewer, or gas services.
- Assessment. Respondent set a TMV for the subject property of $1,028,000 residential, as of January 1, 2016.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE sustained Respondent’s TMV of the subject property at $1,028,000.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Mrs. Tetrault testified on behalf of Complainants. Mrs. Tetrault testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property in May 2011 for $310,000. Mrs. Tetrault testified that the subject property had been listed with a realtor and had been publicly advertised for sale. Mrs. Tetrault testified that the developer had initially started construction of the residence but had gone into foreclosure and that Complainants had purchased the subject property from Condor Capital. Mrs. Tetrault testified that the subject property was not encumbered by a mortgage and that Complainants had not listed the subject property for sale within the three years prior to the evidentiary hearing. Mrs. Tetrault testified that an appraisal of the subject property had been performed in 2014 in relation to litigation involving an easement on the subject property, but no appraisal had been performed related to the instant appeal. Mrs. Tetrault testified that she believes an appraisal is “subjective” because a property is worth only what “someone will pay” for it. Mrs. Tetrault testified that the subject property is unique. Mrs. Tetrault testified that Complainants had not made any improvements to the subject property between January 2015 and January 2016. Mrs. Tetrault opined that the subject property’s TMV as of January 1, 2016, was between $500,000 and $550,000.
To support Complainants’ opinion of value, Mrs. Tetrault offered as evidence the following exhibits:
|Exhibit A||Appraisal Report of John Neff, prepared in 2014 in relation to litigation involving an easement on the subject property|
|Exhibit B||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 1, 1425 Palisades Road|
|Exhibit C||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 2, 1437 Palisades Road|
|Exhibit D||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 3, 880 St. Paul Road|
|Exhibit E||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 4, 1500 St. Paul Road|
|Exhibit F1||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 5, 741 Arbor Chase Drive|
|Exhibit F2||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 6, 701 St. Paul Road|
|Exhibit F3||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 7, 1451 Ridgetree Trails Drive|
|Exhibit F4||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 8, 1127 Forest Ridge Trail|
|Exhibit F5||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 9, 1506 Quail Hollow Court|
|Exhibit H||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 10, 1553 Ridge Road|
|Exhibit I||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 11, 928 Saint Paul Road|
|Exhibit J||Sale listing for Complainants’ Comparable No. 12, 1220 Saint Paul Road|
Respondent objected to Exhibit A for lack of foundation because Mr. Neff, the appraiser who had prepared the appraisal report, was not present to testify and Complainants did not file any written direct testimony of the appraiser. The Hearing Officer sustained the objection and excluded Exhibit A from evidence but allowed Mrs. Tetrault to testify concerning her personal knowledge related to Mr. Neff’s appraisal of the subject property, which had been conducted for litigation involving an easement on the subject property. Respondent objected to Exhibit H with respect to only the handwritten notations that appeared on the exhibit based on lack of foundation for the notations. The Hearing Officer sustained the objection to the handwritten notations and struck the notations from the exhibit but otherwise received Exhibit H into the record. Respondent did not object to Complainant’s Exhibits B through F5 or Exhibits I and J, which were received into the record.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered as evidence the testimony of Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser Mark Stuart (the Appraiser). The Appraiser opined that the subject property’s TMV as of January 1, 2016, was $760,000, which was lower than the BOE’s valuation. In support of the Appraiser’s opinion of value, Respondent offered as evidence Exhibit 1, the Appraiser’s report. Complainant did not object to Respondent’s exhibit, which was received into the record.
The Appraiser testified that, in arriving at his opinion of TMV, he considered the cost approach and the income approach in developing an opinion of value but determined these approaches were neither reliable nor applicable to the subject property. The Appraiser relied on the sales comparison approach to developing an opinion of value of the subject property because that approach reflected the actions of typical buyers and sellers in the local market, which was relatively stable. In his report, the Appraiser noted that no sale or transfer of the subject property had occurred within three years of the date of the appraisal.
The Appraiser’s report analyzed three comparable sales, weighing them all equally. The three comparables had been sold between May 2013 and June 2016. (Exhibit 1) Two of the comparables had the same view, valley view, as the subject property. (Exhibit 1) Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 all were similar to the subject property in that they (1) contained multiple acre lots; (2) included single-family homes that exceeded 4,000 square feet; (3) included four bedrooms; (4) had the same quality of construction (Q3); (5) had the same condition (either C3 or C2); (6) had similar over all basement size and finished basement size; and (6) had the same amenities (garages, patios, and fireplaces). (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser’s report included the definitions for quality of construction and condition. The rating for Q3 was defined as:
Dwellings with this quality rating are residences of higher quality build from individual or readily available designer plans in above-standard residential tract developments or on an individual property owner’s site. The design includes significant exterior ornamentation and interiors that are well finished. The workmanship exceeds acceptable standards and many materials and finishes throughout the dwelling have been upgraded from “stock” standards.
The rating for C3 was defined as:
The improvements are well maintained and feature limited physical depreciation due to normal wear and tear. Some components, but not every major building component, may be updated or recently rehabilitated. The structure has been well maintained.
The adjusted sale prices of Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ranged from $753,800 to $765,900. (Exhibit 1)
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – True Market Value Established. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. However, Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2016, to be $760,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC 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.
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute, real property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification, or assessment of the property. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Id.
During the hearing, the Hearing Officer inquired of Mrs. Tetrault and of the Appraiser.
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption. These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways.
The BOE presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.
The computer-assisted presumption is applicable only if (1) the BOE lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and (2) it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method. The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE sustained the initial valuation of Respondent, and both Complainant and Respondent are now seeking to lower the BOE’s assessment; therefore, the BOE presumption applies.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975). See also, 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).
There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC 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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.
In this case, Respondent presented the Appraiser’s report as evidence indicating a lower valuation than the value finally determined by the BOE and lower than the value previously determined by Respondent; thus, the Appraiser’s report was received to be considered in light of Respondent’s argument that the BOE’s valuation of the subject property should be lowered to $760,000 as of January 1, 2016.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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. 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).
The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Methods of Valuation
Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission. It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach, and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.
“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
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:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- 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.
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.
In this case, Complainant’s evidence was neither substantial nor persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id.
In particular, Mrs. Tetrault testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property in 2011, nearly five years prior to the relevant tax date, for $310,000. Mrs. Tetrault further testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property from Condor Capital, a lender, because the developer of the subject property had gone into foreclosure. Mrs. Tetrault testified that the residence was unfinished and needed substantial work when Complainants purchased it, including electrical wiring, plumbing, and drywall. All of this evidence demonstrates that Complainants’ purchase of the subject property was not a market-based sale involving a buyer and seller that were typically motivated; rather, the evidence indicates that the property was owned by a bank or finance company following a foreclosure. Such situations often indicate that seller is under duress to rid itself of the property and that potential buyers are attempting to take advantage of the situation to obtain a property for less than its full fair market value.
Furthermore, given that the residence on the subject property was unfinished and needed to be completed at the time Complainants purchased it and given that Complainants’ purchase of the subject property occurred at a point in time so remote from the relevant tax date, the price Complainants paid for the subject property is not substantial or persuasive evidence on the issue of the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2016.
Although Mrs. Tetrault testified that generally the price of a property is based on subjective considerations, such as what a buyer likes or dislikes, Mrs. Tetrault testified that she is not a certified appraiser, and Complainants did not present evidence of a court-approved method of valuation for the subject property. Mrs. Tetrault presented evidence of properties that Complainants believed to be comparable to the subjection property. However, Complainants did not make any market-based adjustments to account for the similarities and differences between their comparable properties and the subject property. Upon closer inspection of the comparables, one is compelled to conclude that there were more differences between the comparables and the subject property than similarities. Complainants’ comparables consisted of various styles of residences (ranch, 1.5 story, 2 story), various square footages (1,320 square feet to 8,828 square feet), and various lot sizes (.570 acres to 83.59 acres). Complainants’ comparables had list prices ranging from $179,900 to $2.6 million, but the evidence indicated that not all of Complainants’ comparables had been sold at the time of the evidentiary hearing; consequently, it is unclear how the proposed list and/or sale prices of the comparables related to Complainants’ proposed TMV of the subject property.
On the contrary, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. The Appraiser, a state certified residential real estate appraiser, used one of the three court-approved methods for valuing residential property to arrive at an opinion of TMV for the subject property, the sales comparison method. The Appraiser’s report analyzed sales data from comparable properties in the same unique geographic area as the subject property. Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 all bore many similarities with the subject property. All of the comparables included: large single-family homes located on multiple acres; residences that exceeded 4,000 square feet above grade; residences built with the Q3-level quality of construction; residences containing four bedrooms; and residences containing multiple fireplaces and had stucco exterior construction. The adjusted sale prices of the comparables based on the market-based adjustments for the similarities and the differences between the comparables and the subject property ranged between $753,800 and $765,900. The Appraiser’s opinion as to the TMV of the subject property, $760,000, fell squarely within that range of values. This method of developing an opinion of value was not subjective based on what the Appraiser liked or disliked about the subject property but was based upon research and analysis conducted in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
The TMV for the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2016 is set at $144,400 residential ($760,000 TMV).
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC 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. Section 138.432, RSMo
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 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 March 14, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 14th day of March, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Complainants’ Exhibit G was presented then disregarded as a duplicate of Exhibit F2.