Chesterfield Village Inc v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St Louis County

June 29th, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

CHESTERFIELD VILLAGE, INC, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No.      07-10790
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

On June 29, 2015, Chief Counsel Maureen Monaghan, acting as Hearing Officer, entered her Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (“BOE”) and setting the assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 at $2,446,080.

Respondent filed his Application for Review of the Decision.  Complainant filed their Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard Upon Review

 

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining fair market value (FMV), 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).  Likewise the State Tax Commission (“STC”) is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the STC deems them entitled.  The STC having reviewed the record, considered the Decision and briefs of the parties enters its Decision and Order.

DECISION

 

Respondent’s Points on Review

            Respondent put forth the following points in support of his Application for Review:

  1. The Hearing Officer erred in holding that the median level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4% and in applying the 29.4% assessment ratio to arrive at the assessed value for the subject property for the 2007 tax year.
  2. The Hearing Officer erred in finding that Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence as to discrimination.

Commission’s Decision

The Commission will now address each of the Points raised under the following headings:  Evidence of Discrimination and Application of the Median Assessment Level.  For the reasons that will now be set forth in response to the Points just stated, the Commission finds the Respondent’s arguments to be unpersuasive to warrant either a modification or overturning of the Decision.

 

Factual and Procedural History

            In 2007, Chesterfield Village, LLC (“Chesterfield”) received a Change of Assessment Notice for the property regarding their tax liability for tax year 2007.  The St. Louis County Assessor (“Assessor”) determined the fair market value (“FMV”)[1] of the Property to be $16,638,200.  The Assessor classified the property as commercial and calculated the assessed value for the Property at $5,324,220 using an assessment ratio of 32%.[2]

Chesterfield appealed the Assessor’s $16,638,200 valuation of the Property to the BOE.  The BOE held a hearing at which the Assessor and Chesterfield each presented evidence as to the FMV of the Property.  On August 21, 2007, the BOE issued a decision sustaining the determination of FMV.

On September 17, 2007, Chesterfield filed a Complaint for Review of Assessment with the STC alleging discrimination.  Specifically, Chesterfield’s Complaint cited “discrimination based on level of assessment ratio” as the basis for its appeal to the STC.

Chesterfield’s appeal to the STC was one of several hundred such appeals filed alleging discrimination for tax year 2007.  To expedite those appeals, the STC bifurcated the issues.  The STC first held an evidentiary hearing to determine the median level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County for 2007.[3]  On December 7, 2010, the STC conducted the evidentiary hearing.  Chesterfield, along with other taxpayers, presented expert testimony that commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 were, on average, assessed at 26.6% of the FMV.  The Assessor presented expert testimony that those properties were assessed at 29.4% of the FMV.  On April 29, 2011, the Hearing Officer issued a Decision and Order finding the median level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 to be 29.4% , i.e., commercial properties, on average, were assessed at 29.4% of FMV in tax year 2007.

The adjudication of Chesterfield’s and the other appeals resumed with proceedings conducted to determine the FMV of the Property and whether discrimination had in fact occurred.  The evidence submitted included an appraisal report by two state certified general appraisers, testimony of the appraisers, and the BOE decision.  The Assessor did not object to any evidence of valuation and chose not to request a hearing.  The Hearing Officer rendered a decision based upon the submitted exhibits.

On June 29, 2015, the Hearing Officer entered a Decision and Order.  The Hearing Officer found the FMV of the property was $8,320,000 based upon the testimony of two certified appraisers and their appraisal report and concluded that substantial and persuasive evidence as to discrimination was presented.  More specifically, the Hearing Officer made the following factual findings:

  • The Assessor appraised the property at $16,638,200, resulting in an assessed value of $5,324,220;
  • The BOE sustained the FMV;
  • The FMV of the Property as opined by two general, certified appraisers, as of January 1, 2007, was $8,320,000; and
  • The median level of assessment for commercial property in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4%.

 

Based upon the factual findings, the Hearing Officer made conclusions of law as to both valuation and discrimination.  The Hearing Officer, relying on the report and testimony of the appraisers, concluded the FMV of the Property as of January 1, 2007 was $8,320,000.  The Hearing Officer concluded that Chesterfield satisfied the first prong of the test to prove discrimination by establishing the FMV as of January 1, 2007.  In considering the second prong of the discrimination test, the Hearing Officer concluded that no evidence of an intentional plan of discrimination was presented.  However, when considering whether the level of assessment was “so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment,” the Hearing Officer proceeded to compare the median or actual level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 to the level of assessment imposed by the Assessor on the Property in 2007.  The Hearing Officer found that the Property’s assessed value as determined by the Assessor using an assessment ratio of 32% was $5,324,220.  The subject property’s assessed value using the Hearing Officer’s determination of FMV and a median assessment ratio of 29.4% was $2,446,080.  The difference between the assessed values is $2,878,140.  The Property was assessed at 64% of its FMV.  The figures and calculations are set out in the tables below:

Assessment Ratio FMV Assessed Value
Assessor 32% $16,638,200 $5,324,220
STC 29.4% $8,320,000 $2,446,080

 

Assessed Value divided by FMV Level of

Assessment
$5,324,220

$8,320,000

 = .64 (or 64%)

Because the Property had been assessed at 64% of its FMV, the Hearing Officer found that Chesterfield demonstrated that the Assessor’s 2007 assessment of the Property was more than a de minimis error in judgment and established a right to have the assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which others are taxed.  The Hearing Officer ordered the assessed value of the Property to be set at $2,446,080.

On July 28, 2015, the Assessor filed his application for review.

Conclusions of Law

Discrimination

In discrimination appeals, there are only two elements to be established: (1) FMV of the subject property and (2) the median assessment ratio. More specifically, Chesterfield was required to (1) prove the FMV of the Property on January 1, 2007; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003.)  “By requiring that the level of an assessment be so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment in cases in which intentional discrimination is not shown, the courts and the Commission refrain from correcting assessments which reflect no more than de minimus errors of judgment on the part of assessors. Such a standard recognizes that ‘[w]hile practical uniformity is the constitutional goal, absolute uniformity is an unattainable ideal.”   Savage,722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986).  A taxpayer pursuing a discrimination claim must prove both the FMV of his property and, in relevant part here, that the level of assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.  State ex rel Ashby Road Partners, LLC v State Tax Commission, 297 S.W.3d 80 (Mo banc 2009).

Since the Respondent has not disputed the finding of FMV by the Hearing Officer, we turn to the second prong of the test – whether the level of assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.  The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the proper method for analyzing discrimination compares the median level of assessment for similar-situated properties – in this appeal, commercial properties located in St. Louis County as of January 1, 2007 – to the actual level of assessment imposed on the property by the Assessor.  The median level of assessment for commercial property in St. Louis County in 2007 was found to be 29.4% based upon the 2011 STC decision to that effect which relied upon the evidence presented by the Assessor.

The actual level of assessment imposed on the property was 64%.

The Hearing Officer found that the actual level of assessment was more than a de minimis error on the part of the Assessor.

Median Assessment Level

             The median assessment ratio for the 2007-08 assessment cycle in St. Louis County for commercial property is 29.4% as determined and established by the Decision and Order dated April 29, 2011.  The Hearing Officer correctly evaluated the actual assessment imposed upon Complainant’s property and the median level of assessment that had been established by the prior Decision and Order.  The Hearing Officer did not err in concluding that the Complainant was entitled to have its assessment reduced to the percentage of value at which others were taxed, i.e. 29.4% – the assessment placed upon the general mass of other commercial property in St. Louis County. Sioux City Bridge Co. V. Dakota County, Neb., 43 S. Ct. 190 (1923)

Respondent’s argument that the median level of assessment established from Respondent’s own ratio study of 29.4% should be compared to the statutory assessment ratio of 32% is not well taken.  This simply is not the appropriate methodology.  It is not the standard adopted by the Commission or the Supreme Court.  Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); West County BMW v. Muehlheausler, STC Appeal No. 05-12569 (March 17, 2009) Both Savage and BMW require a comparison between the average level of assessment (29.4%) and the actual level of assessment for the subject property (64%); not between the median assessment ratio (29.4%) and the statutory assessment ratio (32%) as argued by Respondent.  The Hearing Officer correctly and properly made this comparison and evaluation, ascertaining the subject property’s assessed value using the statutory ratio applied to the FMV set by the Assessor and the subject property’s assessed value using the median assessment ratio established from Assessor’s own ratio study and the FMV set by the BOE.  Neither Missouri Courts nor the Commission has established a bright line test to identify what constitutes a grossly excessive assessment as opposed to a mere de minimis error in judgment in discrimination appeals.  While a bright line test does not exist, previous appeals do provide guidance.  In Town & Country Racquet Club v. Morton, 1989 WL 41005, the State Tax Commission found no discrimination wherein the average level of assessment for commercial property ranged from 30.48 to 31.46 percent and the actual level of assessment was 32%.  In Mid-America Financial, ED102716, (Mo Ct. App-ED, 2015), the Court found discrimination wherein the average level of assessment for commercial property was 29.4% and the actual level of assessment was 64%.   The assessment in each given case must be analyzed against the assessment under the median ratio to address the grossly excessive factor.  In this appeal, the difference in the two assessed values was grossly excessive. The Hearing Officer did not err in her analysis, comparison and conclusions in this appeal.

Finding discrimination, the Hearing Officer reduced the assessed value for the property to $2,446,080 by applying the median ratio of 29.4% to the FMV.

Summary & Conclusion

A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.   There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer.  A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that she abused her discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

The Hearing Officer did not err in her determinations as challenged by Respondent.

 

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.  Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.  The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, 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, RSMo within thirty 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, RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of  St. Louis 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 December 27, 2016.

 

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 27th day of December, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 FAX

[1] FMV is also referred to by the STC and Missouri Courts as “true value.” The terms are used interchangeably.  Zimmerman v. Mid-America Financial, ED102716.

[2] The formula for determining the assessed value of a parcel of real property is Assessed value = FMV * assessment ratio as set by statute for the classification of property.  Commercial property is assessed using a 32% ratio. Section 137.115.5(3) RSMo.

[3] The median level of assessment represents the median assessment ratio as a percentage of FMV, applied by the Assessor to similarly situated properties in a given year.  In this group of appeals, it is the commercial properties in St. Louis County.  The median level of assessment represents at what percentage of FMV a class of properties, on average, has been assessed in a certain year.  Discrimination analysis involves comparing the median level of assessment to the level of assessment actually applied to the Property by the Assessor.  Such issue will be addressed in the legal conclusions.

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

CHESTERFIELD VILLAGE, INC )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 07-10790
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s assessment SET ASIDE.  Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money and assessment ratio for the subject property for tax year(s):

True Value 2007-2008 Assessment Ratio Assessed Value
$8,320,000 29.4% $2,446,080

 

Complainant appeared by counsel, Thomas Campbell.  Respondent appeared by Attorney Edward Corrigan.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the County.  Having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, the Hearing Officer finds that the Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence as to overvaluation and discrimination.  The following Decision and Order is entered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the County Board of Equalization.
  2. Schedule and Procedure. The State Tax Commission issued an Order setting forth the schedule and procedures for this appeal.  The Schedule and Procedure required that each party file and exchange exhibits and written direct testimony to establish their case in chief on or before May 1, 2015.  Complainant and Respondent filed and exchanged the exhibits set out below under Evidence.  Parties had until May 20, 2015, to file objections and rebuttal exhibits.  Neither party objected to the exhibits filed.  Respondent was ordered to file, on or before June 2, 2015, a Certification of Hearing indicating a good faith intention to require a hearing.  Respondent failed to file with the Commission.
  3. Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number: 18S521098 and is further identified as 875 W Chesterfield Pky, St. Louis County, Missouri.
  4. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $16,638,200, an assessed commercial value of $5,324,220.  The Board of Equalization sustained the valuation
  5. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant filed with the Commission the following documents:  Exhibit A – Appraisal Report of Certified Appraisers John Hottle and Michael Robinson, Exhibit B – Written Direct Testimony of John Hottle, and Exhibit C – Written Direct Testimony of Michael Robinson.
  6. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent filed with the Commission the following documents:  Exhibit 1- Board of Equalization decision.
  7. The State Tax Commission previously found that the median level of assessment for commercial property in St. Louis County in 2007 is 29.4%. The previous decision is incorporated by reference.
  8. The true value of the property as of January 1, 2007, was $8,320,000.

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.  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 and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo

Issuance of Decision Absent Evidentiary Hearing

            The Hearing Officer, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.  Section 138.431.5 RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.080 (2) The filing of exhibits and written direct testimony establishes the basis upon which opportunity for an evidentiary hearing can be held.  The Complainant has the burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence.  The Respondent did not request a hearing, did not file objections to the Complainant’s exhibits or  file any rebuttal exhibits.  Therefore, the Hearing Officer simply considered the exhibits filed and proceeded to ascertain if said exhibits met the standard of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the market value of the property.

Presumption 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)

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  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.

 

  1. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

  1. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

  1. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

  1. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

  1. 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

 

Mr. Hottle and Mr. Robinson conducted an appraisal of the property under appeal consistent with this standard.

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) The Hearing Officer is persuaded that the valuation presented in the appraisal is based upon appropriate and sound appraisal practice and therefore constitutes substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value concluded of $8,320,000.

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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra;  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. Div. 2 1974).

The appraisers appraised the property developing the sales comparison approach.  The methodology utilized was appropriate for the appraisal problem presented in the present appeal.

Complainant Proves 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, 2007.  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.  The appraiser reviewed sales of comparable properties.

The appraiser concluded a value of $8,320,000

The Complainant’s appraisal evidence meets the required evidentiary standard to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, of the subject property.

 

Discrimination

 

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2007; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003.)

There is no evidence that there was an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials so we must determine if the Complainant has presented substantial and persuasive evidence to show that the level of their assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.  “By requiring that the level of an assessment be so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment in cases in which intentional discrimination is not shown, the courts and the Commission refrain from correcting assessments which reflect no more than de minimus errors of judgment on the part of assessors. Such a standard recognizes that ‘[w]hile practical uniformity is the constitutional goal, absolute uniformity is an unattainable ideal’.”   Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986).

In a discrimination case, the Commission evaluates the difference between the average level of assessment for a particular class of real property and the actual assessment imposed on the property of the taxpayer alleging discrimination. Savage 722 S.W.2d at 79.  The Commission has held that the average level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4%.  See In The Matter of the 2007 and 2008 Commercial Assessment Ratio of Properties in St. Louis County v. Zimmerman State Tax Commission Appeal 07-08 Ratio (“2007 Ratio Case”). To prevail and be entitled to a remedy in a discrimination case, the taxpayer must show that the differential between the Assessor’s assessment on the taxpayer and the average level of assessment is grossly excessive.  The subject property’s assessed value as determined by the Assessor was $5,324,220 using a valuation of $16,638,200 and an assessment ratio of 32%.  The subject property’s assessed value using the true value of $8,320,000 and a median assessment ratio of 29.4% is $2,446,080.  The difference between the assessed values is $2,878,140.  (Assessment ratio of 64%)

The Complainant has established that the assessment was more than a de minimus error in judgment on the part of the assessor and thereby established their right to have his “assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which others are taxed…” (Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, Neb, 43 S.Ct.190 (1923)) in other words, the taxpayer’s assessed valuation should be set at the assessment “placed upon the general mass of other taxable property in the county.”

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.         The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $2,446,080.

 

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, 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 June 29, 2015

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 29th day of June, 2015, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator