Cy & Kay Myers v. Kessinger (Greene)

 

CY & KAY MYERS, )

)

Complainants, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 12-33003

)

RICK KESSINGER, ASSESSOR, )

GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, )

)

Respondent. )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Greene County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED in Part and SET ASIDE in part.

True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2012 is set at $85,600 ($13,600 – Agricultural; $72,000 – Commercial), assessed value of $24,670 ($1,630 – Agricultural; $23,400 – Commercial)

Complainants appealed pro se.

Respondent represented by Greene County Counselor, Theodore K. Johnson, Lowther Johnson, Springfield, Missouri.

Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, discrimination and misclassification, the decision of the Greene County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Commission takes this appeal to determine (1) the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2011[1]; whether there was an intentional plan by either the Assessor or Board of Equalization to assess the subject property at an assessment ratio or under a classification different than other property of the same sub-classifications as the subject; and (3) whether the entire subject property should be classified as agricultural.

The Hearing Officer, 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. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Greene County Board of Equalization.

2. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number 88-13-28-301-071A. It is further identified as 1440 South Farm Road 135, Springfield, Missouri.[2]

3. Description of Subject Property. The Complainants’ property consists of a 15.51 acres tract of land with certain improvements.[3] The actual property assessment that is being disputed involves only .6469 of an acre classified as commercial land and the frame structure with two porches on that land. Hence the subject property consists of the .6469 of an acre and the frame building. A portion of the .6469 of an acre consists of .1469 of an acre on which a cell tower and supporting building sits. The cell tower and supporting building are not owned by complainants and according not assessed as their property.[4]

4. Overall Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $108,000 as a mixed use property. These appraised values result in an assessed agricultural value of $590 and an assessed commercial value of $32,990,[5] for a total assessed value of $33,580. The Board of Equalization sustained the assessment.[6]

5. Specific Assessments. A total of 14.8631 acres were classified as agricultural land and valued based on soil grades as established by 12 CSR 30-4.010. The 14.8631 acres and an agricultural canopy were assessed at the agricultural assessment ratio of 12%.[7] The remaining .6469 of an acre (subject property) was classified as commercial land. It is improved by a frame building with two covered porches, which was included in the assessment.

6. Complainants’ Evidence. Complainants offered into evidence the following exhibits:

 

Exhibits A through Q were objected to, objections are sustained and the exhibits are excluded from the evidentiary record, subject to exceptions set out in the Rulings. See, Rulings on Objections, infra.

7. No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012, therefore the assessed value for 2011 remains the assessed value for 2012.[8]

8. Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted.

A. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2011, to be $55,603, assessed value of $6,672, as proposed. See, Presumption In Appeal and Complainants Fail To Prove Value, infra.

B. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish an intentional plan of discrimination in the assessment of their property. See, Presumption In Appeal and Complainants Fail To Prove Discrimination, infra.

C. Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish that the .1469 of an acre on which the cell tower and supporting building sits should be classified as agricultural land. See, Presumption In Appeal and Complainants Fail To Prove Misclassification – Cell Tower Land, infra.

9. Presumption of Correct Assessment of Half Acre Rebutted. Complainants’ evidence was substantial and persuasive to establish that the storage building and the half acre on which the building is located should be classified as agricultural real estate. See, Presumption In Appeal and Complainants Prove Misclassification – Storage Building Land & Structure, infra.

10. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence the following exhibits:

 

Objections were filed to portions of Exhibit 3. The Objections are overruled. See, Rulings on Objections, infra. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are received into the record.

11. Valuations and Assessments.

A. Agricultural Land and Structures: The true value in money of the 15.3631 acres as agricultural productive value is $2,875, rounded to $2,900,[9] assessed at 12% for an assessed value of $350. The true value in money of the agricultural canopy and storage building is $10,700, assessed at 12% for an assessed value of $1,280. Total Agricultural Value $13,600, assessed value $1,630. See, Presumption In Appeal, Valuation of Agricultural Land and Improvements and Complainants Prove Misclassification – Storage Building Land & Structure, infra.

B. Cell Tower Land: The .1469 of an acre is valued at $72,000, assessed at 32% for an assessed value of $23,040. See, Presumption In Appeal and Complainants Fail To Prove Misclassification – Cell Tower Land, infra.

12. Total Valuation. The total value for Complainants’ property is $85,600 ($13,600 – Agricultural; $72,000 – Commercial), assessed value of $24,670 ($1,630 – Agricultural; $23,400 – Commercial).

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.[10]

Ruling on Objections

Respondent’s Objections to Complainants’ Exhibits A through Q

Counsel for Respondent makes objection to Exhibit A through Q on the grounds of Lack of Foundation, Authentication, Relevancy and Materiality, and Hearsay. Based upon the legal authorities and precedents cited in Respondent’s Memorandum the objections as set forth in detail are sustained.[11]

Exhibits A through Q are excluded from the evidentiary record for the purpose of establishing the claims of overvaluation, discrimination and misclassification, except for that portion of Exhibits E and M that describe the building and use of same on the half acre portion of the subject. The documents are maintained in the Commission file as having been tendered by Complainants, but cannot be considered as probative on the issues of overvaluation, discrimination or misclassification of agricultural land.

Complainants’ Objections to Respondent’s Exhibit 3

Complainants filed their objections to various Answers of Joe Durnall contained in Exhibit 3 and tendered Rebuttal Exhibits R, S, T, U, V, W and X in support of certain of their Objections to Answers provided in Exhibit 3. Respondent filed his Responses to Complainant’s Objections which included objections to the Rebuttal Exhibits. Complainants’ filed their “Objections to Respondent’s Objections and Exhibits.”

Respondent’s Responses and Objections to Rebuttal Exhibits

Responses to Objections

Respondent’s Responses to Objections to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are well taken. Based upon the legal authorities and precedents cited in Respondent’s Response, Complainants’ Objections are overruled.[12] Complainant’s Objections did not provide a basis in law for the exclusion of Exhibits 1, 2 or 3. All objections were mere arguments which in the best possible light only went to the weight that might be accorded the evidence, and not to its admissibility.

Objections to Rebuttal Exhibits

The documents tendered as Rebuttal Exhibits are subject to various imparities, which include being hearsay documents and a lack of testimony to establish a proper foundation to establish the documents for rebuttal purposes. None of the documents on their face actually establish a fact or facts that rebut the fundamental elements of the appraisal tendered on behalf of Respondent. Rebuttal Exhibits R, S, T, U, V, W and X are excluded from the evidentiary record. The documents are maintained in the Commission file, but cannot be considered as evidence on the issues of overvaluation, discrimination or misclassification of agricultural land.

Likewise, Complainants further tender of their Objections to Respondent’s Objections and Exhibits, which included documents marked as Exhibits Y, Z, AA and AB, are not well taken. The new documents proffered do not rebut any elements of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 that are material to the Complainants’ claims of overvaluation, discrimination and misclassification. Accordingly, they have no probative merit in the appeal.

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.[13] 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.[14]

Presumption In Appeal

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[15] 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.[16]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[17] 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.[18]

In the present appeal, the exhibits tendered by Complainants have been excluded based upon the ruling on the objections, with the exception note above. Accordingly, there is no evidence to establish that the Board erred in its determination of value or classification of the subject property, except for the classification of the half acre on which the storage building is located. Furthermore, there is no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude that the taxpayers’ opinion of value or of classification on the cell tower site set out in the Complaint for Review of Assessment is representative of the fair market value of the subject property or the correct classification as of January 1, 2011. There is no evidence from which the Hearing Officer could conclude that the Assessor and/or the Board are guilty of an intentional plan to assess the Complainants’ property at an assessment ratio that is not appropriate under the controlling statute.[19] Therefore, Complainants have failed to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board, except as to the classification of the half acre and its storage building. See, Complainants Prove Misclassification – Storage Building Land & Structure, infra.

Review of Complainants’ Exhibits

Although Complainants’ Exhibits A through Q have been excluded from evidence, the Hearing Officer did review in detail the various documents and submissions of Complainants. In the event that either the Commission or a court should conclude that the Hearing Officer erred in his rulings on Respondent’s Objections and abused his discretion in the exclusion of Complainant’s exhibits, the Hearing Officer will address the lack of probative weight for Complainants’ tendered evidence.

First it is noted for the reader that Exhibits A through H and Exhibits I through P are merely duplicates. Exhibits A through H are submitted as the evidence of Mr. Myers and Exhibits I through P were provided as the evidence of Mrs. Myers. Therefore, the discussion of the documents will be consolidated for the sake of brevity in the Decision.

Exhibits A & I – Answers to Interrogatories

These exhibits are simply the answers that Complainants provided to Respondent’s Interrogatories. The seventeen responses are no probative evidence on the issues of value, discrimination or classification. The Hearing Officer does observe that Complainants would not call any witnesses, expert witnesses or non-retained expert witnesses in this proceeding. Answer 8 does give the Owner’s opinion of value, as was stated on the Complaint for Review of Assessment – $55,603 (for 15.51 acres). However, no recognized methodology to establish value was presented. The Exhibits further establish that Complainants did not have the property appraised and had no comparable properties to present on the issue of valuation.

Exhibits C & K – Statement 1

These documents contain the following documents: (1) owners’ statement on history of the 15.51 acres and their assertions relative to the 2012 assessment; (2) a letter to the Greene County Planning Commission, dtd 11/16/1984; (3) 2009 Notice of Renewal of Merchant License; (4) 2012 Tax Statement on property – 88-13-28-301-001 (not subject); (5) aerial map of the 88-13-28-301-001 property; and (6) aerial map of Complainants property. None of these documents constitute substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a value of $55,603 as of 1/1/11 for the Myers’ property. None of these documents constitute substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a claim of discrimination by the Assessor and/or the Board in the assessment of the subject property. None of these documents constitute substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the correct classification for the subject property as of 1/1/11 should be agricultural.

Exhibits D & L – Statement 2

These Exhibits contain the Complainants’ argument against the use of the income approach to value the subject property. The Exhibit contain: (1) the owners’ argument; (2) copy of a portion of the STC website on how the Assessor values real property; (3) a section from the Assessor Manual on capitalization; (4) a copy of the March 28, 2003 Ground Lease on the subject property; and (5) a copy of page III – 3 from the Assessor Manual on Original Assessment.

There is no evidence to establish Mr. or Mrs. Myers as experts on the valuation and assessment of real property and the appropriate methodologies that may be applied to the appraisal of any given property. The argument (Item 1) against the use of the income approach to value a part of the subject property is not well taken. Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 just referenced provide no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude the value proposed by Complainants, nor can it be concluded from these documents that the claim of discrimination is valid, or that the classification of the subject property as commercial is invalid.

Item 4 does establish that Complainants executed a ground lease for a portion of the subject property for use by SBA Towers and its successor AAT Communications Corporation for operation and maintenance of a cell tower and supporting buildings and equipment. The ground lease had an initial term of 5 years (10/23/01 – 10/23/06), with five successive five years, therefore extending to 2031.

Exhibits E & M – Statement 3

The portions of these Exhibits that present the owners’ arguments and allegations of errors in the assessor’s computations are not probative of the value of $55,603 proposed by Complainants. Nor are those portions of the Exhibits probative as to the claims of discrimination and misclassification. However, the “testimony” of the owners relative to the building in question on the subject property and its use since February, 2006 as a “farm barn for storage of equipment and supplies” is relevant as to the classification and assessment of the improvement.

Exhibits F & N – Statement 4

These Exhibits contain Complainants’ discrimination arguments. Therefore, they contain no information which is probative on the valuation or classification issues. The sum of the Myers’ discrimination argument appears to be that the assessments on two other properties in Greene County on which there are cell towers are significantly lower than their assessment because the other Greene County properties are owned by Greene County residents and Complainants are out of state residents. As will be addressed later in the Decision (Complainants Fail To Prove Discrimination), the information tendered in these Exhibits is not probative of the claim of discrimination.

Exhibits G & O – Statement 5

These Exhibits provide the basis for the owners’ opinion of a value of $55,603 for the total 15.51 acres. The methodology used is based on the average market value of farm land for 2007 for Greene County as calculated by the University of Missouri. This information has no probative value on the issues of discrimination or misclassification. As to the matter of valuation, this will be addressed later in the Decision (Complainants Fail To Prove Value).

Exhibits H & P – Statement 5

These Exhibits only provide a copy of what is purported to be the Assessor’s report presented to the Board of Equalization. As such, they contain no probative evidence to support Complainants’ claims of overvaluation, discrimination or misclassification.

Exhibit Q – 2013 Correspondence

The documents attached to Complainants’ statement relate to an individual making an inquiry concerning the subject property in 2013 for possible purchase. No offer was actually made, only an inquiry as to any interest in selling. This Exhibit provides no probative evidence to support Complainants’ claims of overvaluation, discrimination or misclassification.

Summary and Conclusion

Had no objections been posed by Respondent to Complainants’ Exhibits, the Hearing Officer would have not had any substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the claims of overvaluation and discrimination.

Exhibits R through AB

The Hearing Officer, having excluded these exhibits will not further burden the Decision by addressing the non-probative aspects of these documents.

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.[20] True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[21] It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[22] 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.

 

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

 

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

 

4. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

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

 

6. 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.[23]

 

Valuation of Agricultural Land and Improvements

Agricultural land is assessed based on productive land values. Agricultural improvements are assessed based upon fair market value. No evidence was tendered by Complainants which challenged or established that the productive land values placed on the subject 14.8631 acres ($2,800 for the 14.8631 acres) were in error. No evidence was tendered to establish an error in the value ($2,100) concluded by the Assessor/Board for the agricultural improvement. Accordingly, the agricultural assessment for the 14.8631 acres with the canopy structure of $590 ($4,900 x .12 = 588, rounded to $590) is affirmed.

Complainants Fail To Prove Value

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, 2011.[24] 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.”[25] 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 owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[26] The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[27] The owners’ opinion offered for the entire 15.51 acres of $55,603 is not supported by any substantial and persuasive evidence in this record. Complainants’ methodology for concluding value is fatally flawed.

Complainants propose to establish the fair market value of the entire 15.51 acres based on a study by the University of Missouri that concluded that the average agricultural market value for land in 2007 in Greene County was $3,585. The first critical error in the methodology presented by Mr. & Mrs. Myers is that this does not constitute any recognized and accepted approach to valuing land in an ad valorem tax appeal before the Commission. The second error is that the Myers’ methodology is specifically in violation of state statute which mandates that agricultural land that is not vacant and unused, must be valued based on agricultural land productive values, and not on its fair market value or an average market value.[28]

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.[29] 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.[30] However, there is no evidentiary basis upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude that the Myers’ approach to finding value has ever been accepted by any assessment authority. Complainants were not established to be experts in the appraisal of real property. Accordingly, their opinion of value and the underlying methodology constitute simply a layperson’s opinion.

The opinion of the owners is simply not based upon proper elements or a proper foundation. It has no probative value. Therefore, Complainants failed to establish their opinion of value for any part of their land.

Complainants Fail To Prove Discrimination

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2011; 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.[31] Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination. Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.[32] The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in the subject county for a given classification must be shown to be grossly excessive.[33] No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.[34]

Complainants’ discrimination claim is based upon their assertion that there are two other properties in Greene County which have cell towers which are asserted to be classified or at least zone as residential properties and their assessments were lowered from 2010 to 2012. As noted above the assessments on a few properties do not establish discrimination. There is simply no evidence which would support a conclusion that the manner in which the assessor has assessed Complainants’ property or more specifically the subject property (.6469 of an acre) was based upon the Myers as out of state residents being the owners of the property. The Myers’ property is located in a General Commercial District, not a residential zoned area.[35]

In other words, where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2011. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office. Complainant’s failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the fair market value of the subject property. Specifically, no competent evidence addressing the value of the .1469 of an acre was presented.

However, even if Complainants had established the fair market value of the .1469 of an acre, they would then have to prove the average level of assessment for commercial property in Greene County for 2011.

This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of commercial properties in Greene County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the assessor’s office for 2011; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results. The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all commercial property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Greene County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive,[36] this Complainants did not do.

Complainants’ discrimination claim fails because they failed to establish the market value of the .1469 of an acre. Without establishing the market value, they cannot establish the assessment ratio, other than the statutory assessment ratio which was applied by the Assessor to the appraised value which he had determined for the .1469 of an acre. Without establishing the ratio, Complainants failed to establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value that any other commercial property.

However, even if Complainants had established the market value of the .1469 of an acre, their discrimination claim would still fail because they have not demonstrated that a statistically significant number of other commercial properties within Greene County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property. Complainants’ claim of discrimination is based upon the alleged assessment of two residential properties. At no time have Complainants asserted that the subject .1469 of an acre should be assessed as residential property.

Because Complainants have failed to establish the market value of the cell tower land and failed to establish that this portion of their 15.51 acres are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other commercial properties in Greene County, they have failed to establish discrimination.

Complainants Fail To Prove Misclassification – Cell Tower Land

Turning now to the matter of the .1469 of an acre on which the cell tower is located, the Complainants claim is that the land should be assessed as agricultural land. There is no evidence that as of 1/1/11 this property was “. . . used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops; to the feeding, breeding and management of livestock which shall include breeding, showing, and boarding of horses; to dairying, or to any other combination thereof; . . . or . . . land devoted to and qualifying for payments or other compensation under a soil conservation or agricultural assistance program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government.”[37] Nor was it established that the cell tower land was in any fashion a part of the larger agricultural operation on the remaining 15.3531 acres. The .1469 of an acre was devoted only to providing a site for a cell tower. Providing a site for a cell tower does not constitute the use of the land for any agriculture purpose. Accordingly, the Assessor and Board properly concluded that this land should be assessed as commercial real property at 32% of its fair market value of $72,000.

Complainants Prove Misclassification – Storage Building Land & Structure

Finally, the matter of the classification of the storage building and its underlying half acre of land must be determined. The only evidence as to the actual use of this storage building is that since 2006 it has been used as a farm barn for storage of farming or agricultural equipment and supplies.[38] The fact that prior to 2006 it had been used as a retail store is irrelevant to classifying the property as of 1/1/11. The actual use of the building for approximately five years prior to the current assessment date is that of agricultural storage. Accordingly, it must be assessed at 12% of its value.

Complainants did not present any evidence upon which the Hearing Officer could set the value of the storage building. Therefore, the value as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of $8,600 must be used for the valuation of the building. The assessed value of the storage building is set at $1,030.[39]

The half acre of land on which the storage building is located is part of the larger 15 acre farmland. Therefore, as it supports the agricultural storage building and is part and parcel of the larger area of farmland. It is to be given the agricultural productive land grade 6 with a per acre value of $150. See, FINDING OF FACT 11.A, supra.

Respondent’s Evidence

The objections to the evidence which Respondent tendered valuing .6469 acres of the Myers’ property have been rendered moot, by the failure of Complainants to submit substantial and persuasive evidence to establish value. Therefore, there is no need to burden the record with a detailed analysis and review of the Durnall appraisal. Respondent’s exhibits provide no basis to rebut Complainants’ evidence regarding the actual agricultural use of the storage building on the half acre of land and the classification of same as required by statute.

Rendering of Decision Without Evidentiary Hearing

The Hearing Officer is to provide the parties a “reasonable opportunity” for a hearing.[40] It is unusual for a Decision to be rendered without holding of an evidentiary hearing. However, in this case, the time, energy and expense of convening an evidentiary hearing is outweighed by the simple fact that Complainants failed, with the exception of the matter of classification of the half acre storage building area, to present substantial and persuasive evidence to prove their case of overvaluation, discrimination or misclassification of the .1469 of an acre. Those claims relative to the farmland area have been rendered moot by the simple fact the Assessor properly assessed that acreage under applicable agricultural land productive values. This assessment results in the appropriate treatment of the farmland and a valuation far less than the erroneous methodology proposed by Complainants of valuing the land at $3,585 per acre. As a matter of law the land must be assigned the appropriate agricultural land grade. No evidence was forthcoming that established that the land grades utilized by the Assessor were in error.

Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment, except for the half acre storage building area, was not rebutted. Complainants failed to make a prima facie case. Cross-examination of Respondent’s appraiser has been rendered irrelevant and moot. With regard to the half acre storage building area, the Hearing Officer fails to see how any cross-examination on the limited matter of the use of the building is going to alter the evidence that it has been used since 2006 as a farm/agricultural storage facility.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer, after a full review of all exhibits and documents tendered in the appeal, has concluded there is no reasonable basis upon which an evidentiary hearing is needed.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Greene County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED in part and SET ASIDE in part.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2012 is set at $24,670 ($1,630 – Agricultural; $23,400 – Commercial).

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. 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. [41]

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Greene 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 June 25, 2013.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

_____________________________________

W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 25^th day of June, 2013, to: Cy Myers, 15701 Kennedy Rd., Bon Secour, AL 36511, Complainant; Theodore Johnson, Greene County Counselor, 901 St. Louis Street, 20th Floor, Springfield, MO 65806, Attorney for Respondent; Rick Kessinger, Assessor; Richard Struckhoff, Clerk; Scott Payne, Collector, Greene County Courthouse, 940 Boonville, Springfield, MO 65806.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax