Chuck Gatschenberger v. Shipman (St. Charles)

CHUCK GATSCHENBERGER,)

Complainant,)

v.) Appeal No.13-32506 to 13-32512

SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,)

ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

Respondent.)

 

DECISION AND ORDER 

HOLDING 

Decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeared in person.Respondent appeared in person and by Assistant County Counselor Amanda Jennings. Case heard by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.Case decided by Commission.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the ground of misclassification, the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization, which sustained the assessment of the subject property.The Commission takes this appeal to determine whether the property under appeal should be classified as agricultural and assessed based upon the appropriate agricultural land productive value as of January 1, 2013.The Commission, 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 from the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on January 31, 2014, at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri.

2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised each parcel at $20,020, a residential assessed value of $3,804.[1]The Board sustained the assessment.[2]

3.Subject Property.The subject properties are located at The Villages of Hampton Grove, Wentzville, Missouri.

Appeal Number	Parcel Number	Lot Number
13-32506	T080100474	26
13-32507	T080100479	31
13-32508	T080100483	35
13-32509	T080100490	42
13-32510	T080100491	43
13-32511	T080100492	44
13-32512	T080100497	49

 

4.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant submitted the following exhibit:

 

County objected to Exhibit A on the ground of hearsay. Objection was overruled as Complainant testified that he hired Boley Property Maintenance to disk the ground and spread wheat seed on his lots in the subdivision.The billing provided the Complainant with the exact date the service was rendered.Exhibit A was received into the record.

The Complainant testified that he purchased the property in 2011.The property had been classified in the previous assessment cycle as agricultural. The property consists of seven lots in a subdivision development.The streets and curbing have been laid.The lots are serviced with water and other utilities.They are being marketed as residential lots.One of the parcels (Appeal No. 13-32512) sold in 2013 and a building permit for construction was issued on August, 2013.

The Complainant testified that he paid Boley Property Maintenance to spread the seed.He had not visited the property so he was unsure how well the seed had taken or when the activity occurred.No crop was harvested from the properties.The City of Wentzville has posted his property for violations of the nuisance ordinance for having growth of weeds or grass in excess of 12 inches.He testified that when his property is posted, he pays to have the growth cut.

Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the agricultural use of the subject property as of January 1, 2013.See, Complainant Fails To Prove Agricultural Use, infra.

5.Respondent’s Evidence[3].Respondent submitted the following exhibits:

 

No objections were made to Exhibits 1 through 9.They were received into the record.

The photographs depict the parcels from September 2012 to July 2013.

6.Agricultural Activity on Subject.The subject land was planted to winter wheat in August 2012.No harvest was able to be made of any possible crop as Complainant mowed any growth on the lots due to the notice of violation of the nuisance ordinance.

7.Subject Property Assessment.There being no harvest of a crop from the subject property, classification as agricultural land is not warranted.The property was properly assessed by the Assessor and the Board of Equalization.

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 Commission shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.[4]

Basis of Assessment

The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass.[5]The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal.By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[6]In an agricultural misclassification appeal, agricultural use must be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the agricultural use.

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[7]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.When some substantial evidence is produced by the Complainant, “however slight”, the presumption disappears and the Commission, as trier of facts, receives the issue free of the presumption.[8]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.[9]

Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish an agricultural use which would support a classification of the property as agricultural.

Under Missouri statutory law, property shall be classified as agricultural and horticultural property when “real property [is] used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops . . .”Section 137.016.1(2), RSMo.The classification is determined by the actual use put to the property.[10]Cutting hay is an agricultural activity and such activity can be sufficient to cause real property to be classified as “agricultural property”.[11]

The determination of whether or not a property is being used for agricultural purposes does not turn upon the profitability of the endeavor but upon whether the property is primarily devoted to the raising and harvesting of an agricultural crop.Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 SW 3d 357, Mo. App. WD 2012.

Devoted Primarily

“Primary purpose” means that which is first in intention; which is fundamental.“Primarily means principally”.SNL Securities, LC v. National Ass’n of Ins. Com’rs, 23 SW. 3d 734, Mo. App. WD 2000.Principal means chief; primary; most important.Black’s Law Dictionary, 7^th Edition, 1999.Whether a property is devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops is a fact driven inquiry dependent, therefore, on the evidence presented.Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 SW 3d 357, Mo. App. WD 2012.

Complainant Fails To Prove Agricultural Use

In order to prevail, Complainant must present substantial and persuasive evidence of the agricultural use of the property on January 1, 2013.[12]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.”[13]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[14]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.[15]Complainant’s evidence met the required standard to meet its burden of proof.

The evidence established no harvest was made on the property under appeal in 2013 or the previous year.The Complainant testified that he paid for disking and spreading of seed.He did not test the soil, fertilize or additional steps in the production of a crop.He testified that he desired to harvest wheat but the City of Wentzville prevented him from allowing any growth more than twelve inches.No one disputes that the City of Wentzville has an ordinance which prohibits allowing grass or weed of any kind to grow more than 12 inches high. Complainant did not request a hearing from the City as provided for in the notice for violation of the ordinance.The photos do not depict property primarily devoted to agriculture.

The property has been marketed as a residential property in a residential subdivision.It is the intent to sell the property for residential use.The lots were developed for residential use including being platted for same; roads were put in and the lots were serviced with water and electricity.One of the parcels (Appeal No. 13-32512) sold in 2013 and a building permit for construction was issued on August, 2013

Given all these facts, we cannot find that the subject properties were “devoted primarily” to raising and harvesting crops.The lots were devoted primarily to residential development.It is not enough to just contract for disking and spreading wheat and harrow seed on a residential lot.Devoting property to agricultural production requires more than one activity.

Accordingly, the land having not been put to an agricultural use it must be valued and assessed as residential property as was originally determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing date shown in the Certificate of Service.The application shall contain specific 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. [16]

The Collector of St. Charles County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a 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 February 11, 2014. 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer