State Tax Commission of Missouri
CRP-2 BLACKS RIDGE LLC, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
Complainant, |
) |
|
|
) |
|
v. |
) |
Appeal Number 08-10576 |
|
) |
|
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) 2008:
True Value |
Assessment Ratio |
Assessed Value |
$9,061,300 |
29.4% |
$2,664,020 |
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 Board of Equalization.Having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, the Hearing Officer finds that the Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence as to overvaluation however, Complainant did present substantial and persuasive evidence as to 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.On February 27, 2013, 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 July 1, 2013.Respondent had until September 20, 2013, to file objections and rebuttal exhibits.Respondent did not submit objections to Complainant’s exhibits or submit rebuttal exhibits.On September 23, 2013, Respondent was ordered to file, on or before October 11, 2013, a Certification of Hearing indicating a good faith intention to require a hearing or allowing the case to be submitted on exhibits.Respondent failed to file with the Commission.
3.Subject Property.The subject property is identified by map parcel number: 18S140442 and is further identified as 16253 Swingley Ridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri.
4.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $9,061,300, an assessed commercial value of $2,899,610.The Board of Equalization sustained the value.
5.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant filed with the Commission the following documents:Exhibit AThe Board of Equalization’s finding of value and County’s Commercial Review Document. The Respondent Filed Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 which included a deed from December 2007, a certificate of value and the written direct testimony of John Gillick.
6.Median Level of Assessment.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.
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.[1]
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.[2]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.[3]
Presumption In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[4]
Valuation
Section 137.115 of the Missouri Revised Statutes 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 purchased by one who is desiring to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. [5]The value used for the true value in money of a subject property is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. [6]
There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness by the County Board of Equalization.[7] The case law and the Commission’s decisions have repeatedly held the presumption of a correct assessment may only be rebutted when substantial and persuasive evidence is presented to establish that Board’s valuation is erroneous.[8] In the absence of such evidence, the presumptions are assumed to be correct.
The determination of true value is necessary for both overvaluation and discrimination claims.Complainant submitted as Exhibit A the Board of Equalization’s decisions as to the true value in money of the Complainant’s property.The Supreme Court[9] holds that the Commission cannot compel a taxpayer to present evidence in a particular form.Therefore, complainants are entitled to present evidence of the true value in money of their respective properties in the form of the Board of Equalization decisions. The hearing officer’s decision must be based upon its inquiry into relevant matters and evidence presented in the case or solely upon the evidence presented in the case.”
The Complainant’s exhibit establishes true value in money of the subject property.The Complainant’s exhibit does not establish that the property was overvalued.The Complainant’s Exhibit A does satisfy the first prong of the test to prove discrimination.
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. [10]
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’.” [11]
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.[12]. Sales ratio studies are used to determine the average level of assessment. The Commission has held that the average level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4%. [13] 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 County was $2,899,610 using an assessment ratio of 32%.The subject property’s assessed value using a median assessment ratio of 29.4% is $2,664,022.The difference between the assessed values is $235,588.
The Complainant has established that the assessment was more than a de minimus error in judgment on the part of the assessor.
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 year 2008 is set at $2,664,020.
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. [14]
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 26, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
[4] 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)
[5] St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo 1993).
[7] Williamson v. Kessinger, Green County Assessor, Appeal No. 11-22003-11-33019 (June 28, 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
[8] See Cohen, 251 S.W.3d 345; Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2007) (citing Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 SW.2d. 888, 895 (Mo. 1978)); Couples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 7029.4 (Mo. 1959).
[9] State ex rel. Ashby Partners, LLC v State Tax Commission, 297 S.W.3d 80, 88 (Mo. banc 2009).
[10] 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.)