STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|BRYAN & LORNA BALDWIN,||)||Appeal No. 19-30044|
|GAIL MCCANN BEATTY, ASSESSOR,||)|
|JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On July 31, 2020, the Hearing Officer entered a Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the Board of Equalization of Jackson County (BOE). Bryan and Lorna Baldwin(Complainants) subsequently filed an Application for Review of the Hearing Officer’s Decision with the Commission.
The Hearing Officer’s Decision is AFFIRMED. Segments of the Hearing officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into the Commission’s Decision and Order without further reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 32-110-11-28-00-0-00-000. It is further identified as 3823 S. Sterling Ave., Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. The subject property consists of a residential lot improved by a single-family home. The home includes two bedrooms; one bathroom; an unfinished basement built of concrete block; clapboard exterior siding; and an asphalt shingle roof.
Respondent valued the subject property at $77,827, as of January 1, 2019. Complainants appealed to the BOE. The BOE reduced the valuation of the subject property to $66,000, as of January 1, 2019. Complainants timely filed their appeal with the STC. A hearing officer was assigned, and the appeal proceeded to an evidentiary hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing, Complainants presented photographic evidence of horizontal cracks in the basement’s concrete block walls and of damage to the basement walls and floor. Complainants’ evidence included testimony that mud and water run into the basement during rain; that estimates to repair the water problems ranged from $10,000 to $13,000; and that a company had offered to purchase the subject property for $45,000 but also informed Complainants that the company does not pay market value for properties. Complainants’ opinion of the TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019, was $50,000. Respondent offered no evidence at the Evidentiary Hearing.
The Hearing Officer subsequently issued his Decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Hearing Officer specifically found that Complainants’ evidence established the subject property was in need of multiple repairs but that Complainants had offered no evidence utilizing any of the three accepted methods of valuation to establish the true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2019. The Hearing Officer noted that the BOE had reduced the valuation of the subject property but that one would be required to speculate to conclude the BOE had not already factored the needed repairs into its determination of value. The Hearing Officer found that Complainants had not presented substantial and persuasive evidence establishing the BOE’s determination of value was incorrect and what the proper value should be. Consequently, the Hearing Officer affirmed the BOE’s valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2019.
Complainants timely filed their Application for Review alleging that the evidence submitted to the BOE did not reflect the extent of the damage shown in the evidence submitted to the Hearing Officer. Complainants argued that the “new damage and condition more than meets ‘the burden of proof’ . . . to lower the assessed value set by the BOE.” The STC thereafter issued its Order allowing the Application for Review and granting Respondent time to file a response. Respondent did not file a response.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Complainants’ Point on Review
In their sole point on review, Complainants claim that the Hearing Officer’s decision affirming the BOE’s valuation is unfair and improper because the valuation does not reflect the fair market value of the property. Complainants argue that the evidence submitted to the BOE did not reflect the full extent of the damage to the subject property and that the evidence presented to the STC was not seen by the BOE.
Standard of Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a hearing officer of the STC may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the STC. Section 138.432. The STC may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432. The STC may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the STC. Section 138.432.
For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds Complainants’ arguments to be unpersuasive. After thoroughly reviewing the whole record and having considered the Hearing Officer’s Decision, the Application for Review of Complainant, and Complainants’ exhibits and evidence in the record, the Commission affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision.
To obtain an assessment reduction based on overvaluation, Complainant bears the burden of proving the true value in money of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Comm’n, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). The “true value in money” is the same as fair market value, and refers to “the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller.” Mo. Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Comm’n, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). Determining the proper method of valuation is delegated to the Commission. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 897. Determining the true value in money is a factual issue. Parker v. Doe Run Co., 553 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Mo. App. 2018). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, determines both the credibility and weight of the evidence. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. 2012).
The BOE’s valuation is presumed correct. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. The BOE presumption is rebuttable with “substantial controverting evidence.” Id.; see also Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
“Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, and from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case on the fact issues.” Savage v. State Tax Comm’n, 722 S.W.2d 72, 77 (Mo. banc 1986) (internal quotation omitted). If the taxpayer produces substantial evidence rebutting the BOE presumption, “the burden of proof on the facts and inferences would still rest on petitioner, for it is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.” Cupples Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702. The taxpayer must then produce “persuasive” evidence sufficient to convince the trier of fact. White, 321 S.W.3d at 305; see also Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Mo. App. 2002) (evidence is persuasive when it has “sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact”).
The Hearing Officer correctly determined Complainants did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence rebutting the correctness of the BOE’s valuation and proving their proposed TVM of the subject property was correct. Specifically, the evidence did not establish by any recognized approach to valuing property that the BOE’s valuation of $66,000 was incorrect and that Complainants’ opinion of $50,000 was correct. The evidence in the record established that wet spots were present on the basement floor and cracks were present in the basement walls. Complainants argued that the basement’s condition justified a reduction in the TVM of the subject property.
In their Application for Review, Complainants argue that the evidence submitted to the BOE did not reflect the damage shown in the evidence submitted to the Hearing Officer. Complainants also argue in their Application for Review that they “did not know of additional damage” at the time of the BOE hearing and that evidence of the “new damage and condition” meets their burden of proof. Complainants’ evidence included testimony that estimates to repair the water problems ranged from $10,000 to $13,000, but no actual estimates and no testimony from basement repair experts regarding cost was presented. In other words, no objective evidence was presented to show the cost of repairing the condition of the basement or of the impact of that cost on the overall value of the subject property even though the evidence did show the basement was in a damaged or deteriorated condition. Consequently, the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that a particular monetary value could be assigned to the condition of the basement by which an adjustment to the overall value of the subject property could be made.
The Commission finds that a reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result as the Hearing Officer based on a review of the entire record. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895-96; Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998).
The Decision of the hearing officer is AFFIRMED. Segments of the Decision of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, have been incorporated without reference in this final decision of the Commission.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140 within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.
If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8.
If no judicial review is made within 30 days, this decision and order is deemed final, and the Collector of Jackson County, 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.
SO ORDERED July 16, 2021.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Gary Romine, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Will Kraus, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on July 16, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s); County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent; County Collector; and County Clerk.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|BRYAN & LORNA BALDWIN,||)||Appeal No. 19-30044|
|GAIL MCCANN BEATTY, ASSESSOR,||)|
|JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the County Board of Equalization of Jackson County (BOE) independently valuing the subject property in this appeal at a true value in money (TVM) lower that the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Bryan and Lorna Baldwin (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
TVM for the subject property for tax years 2019 and 2020 is $66,000.
Bryan Baldwin appeared pro se and Lorna Baldwin appeared not.
Gail McCann Beatty, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri (Respondent) appeared by attorney Tamika Logan.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer).
Complainants appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the BOE, which lowered the valuation of the subject property. The State Tax Commission (COMMISSION) takes this appeal to determine the TVM for the subject property on January 1, 2019. 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/or improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Authority. Authority over these appeals is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the STC from the decision of the BOE.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on July 2, 2020, at Jackson County Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number/locator numbers 32-110-11-28-00-0-00-000 and street address 3823 S. Sterling Ave., Independence, MO. (Ex. A-D and Complaints for Review of Assessment)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property is a single family residential property. It has two bedrooms, one bathroom, and an unfinished concrete block basement. The exterior is clapboard siding. The subject property has an asphalt shingle roof. The unfinished basement is in need of repairs to fix water leakage around the foundation and cracks in the concrete block wall.
- Assessment. Respondent valued the property at $77,827 residential (assessed value $14,787). The BOE reduced Respondent’s valuation of the property to $66,000, an assessed value of $12,540. (Complaint for Review)
- Complainants’ Evidence. Complainants offered into evidence multiple photographs, which were in loose form and unmarked with exhibit designations. The photographs were not objected to. Complainants were granted leave to mail the exhibits, attached to 8 ½” x 11” paper, marked with exhibit letters, to the STC. Complainants timely mailed such as Exhibit A. Exhibit A depicted damage to the property and its condition, including water and cracks in the basement. Complainant testified that when it rains mud and water runs into the basement. Complainants testified that estimates of $10,000 and $13,000 had been obtained to fix the water problems. Complainants testified that a company that buys homes had offered $45,000 cash for the subject property but that the gentlemen who made the offer stated “we don’t pay full market value.”
- No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2020, therefore the assessed value for 2019 remains the assessed value for 2020. Section 137.115.1.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered no evidence.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and establish the TVM as of January 1, 2019. See, Presumption In Appeal, infra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
STC Authority Over Ad Valorem Taxation Appeals
The STC has authority to hear this appeal and to correct any assessment that 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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431.
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 and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5. Residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money.
Presumption In Appeal
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). This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant. The presumption is not evidence of value. The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer 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. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra. 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. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 2019. Hermel, supra. 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.” 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). 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.
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. 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). The owner’s opinion is without probative value; however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation. 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).
“Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.” Carmel Energy 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. 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 Board of Equalization, 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, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, supra.
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. 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). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. 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).
It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.
Hearsay and Relevance
In evidentiary law there are two important and fundamental concepts relating to the admissibility of evidence, whether in testimonial or documentary form. Those two principles are hearsay and relevance. Either can be sufficient in various circumstances to exclude testimony or documents from coming into the evidentiary record.
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. 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. Section 138.430.2, RSMo.
Weight to be Given Evidence
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. 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 he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).
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 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 transaction and adjusts those prices to account for difference between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonable 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 interest
- 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
Complainants Fail to Prove Value
Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the BOE presumptions and establish the TVM of the subject property, as of January 1, 2019. Complainants presented evidence that the subject property is in need of multiple repairs. The evidence also established that the BOE reduced the TVM of the subject property. Complainants offered no evidence utilizing any of the accepted methods of valuation to establish the TVM of the subject property, as of January 1, 2019. For the Hearing Officer to further lower the TVM of the subject property from that established by the BOE would require the Hearing Officer to participate in speculation, conjecture and surmise that the BOE did not already factor in the repairs needed to the subject property. Such would be improper. Complainants did not meet their burden of proof.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the BOE for Jackson County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2019 and 2020 is set at $12,540.
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. Section 138.432.
The Collector of Jackson 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.
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, July 31, 2020.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on July 31, 2020, to:firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; Collections@jacksongov.org
 All statutory citations are to RSMo. 2000, as amended, unless indicated otherwise.
 All statutory citations are to RSMo. 2000, as amended.