State Tax Commission of Missouri
DAVID & SUE GILBRETH,)
v.) Appeal Number 07-62503
DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct assessment not rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 & 2008 is set at $57,980, residential assessed value of $11,020.
Complainant, David Gilbreth, appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jeremy Crowley.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $69,105, assessed value of $13,130, as residential property.The Board reduced the value to $57,980, assessed value of $11,020.Complainants proposed no value on the Complaint for Review of Assessment.A hearing was conducted on February 5, 2008, at the Jasper County Courthouse Annex,Carthage,Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant testified in his own behalf.He gave his opinion of fair market value to be $65,000.Exhibit A was received into evidence on behalf of Complainant.Exhibit A consisted of the following documents:
1. Copy of Order setting case for Evidentiary Hearing.
2. Copy of business card of Linda Williams, Clerk of Circuit Court, with notes on the back.
3. Copy of Complainants’ 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills.
4. Copy of 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills for Stephen & Cathy Holt.
5. Copy of 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills for Donald and Kathleen Davis.
6. Copy of 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills for Darieus and Theresa Adams.
7. Copy of 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills for John and Jeana Bartosh.
8. Copy of 2006 and 2007 Real Estate Tax bills for James and Delores Honey
9. A summary of the percentage increase in taxes from 2006 to 2007 paid by Complainants, Honey, Bartosh,Davis, Hold andAdams.
10. Copy of letter dated September 8, 2007 to the State Tax Commission discussing Mr. Gilbreth’s appearance before the Jasper County Board of Equalization.
11. Copy of Notice of Change in Value for the subject property.
12. Pictures and data sheets on properties located at 2427 S. Pennsylvania and 2122Kentucky,Joplin.
Respondent offered into evidence the appraisal report (Exhibit 1) of Ms. Christine Meadows, appraiser for Respondent.The appraiser testified as to her appraisal of the subject property.Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.Exhibit 1 concluded on a value for the subject property of $57,980 based upon a cost analysis.This value was supported by an analysis of sales of two properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is located at 315 East 22nd St,Joplin,Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 19-6.0-14-20-009-010.000.
3.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.
4.Complainant’s 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, 2007.
5.Complainant offered his opinion of fair market value of his property to be $65,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.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.Section 138.431.4, RSMo.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof 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).
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.The evidence presented by Mr. Gilbreth did not address the issue of the fair market value of the subject property.It did not provide market data to rebut the presumption of correct assessment.
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).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.
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.
Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; See also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2007.Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief.Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).See also, 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).
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).
Mr. Gilbreth stated his opinion of fair market value to be $65,000 or approximately $7,000 more than the value set by Board of Equalization.However, no market evidence was presented by the Complainants to establish a fair market value less than the value of $57,980, set by the Board.The information relating to the property onPennsylvania, a 2006 sale for $54,000 would appear to give support to the Board’s value.The sales information on theKentucky streetproperty is a 2004 sale and therefore questionable for a 2007 valuation, in light of other more recent sales data.Very simply, Mr. Gilbreth thinks his property had a true value in money as of January 1, 2007 of $65,000, therefore, even by the taxpayer’s own opinion the property was not overvalued by the Board’s decision.The taxpayer having failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment the valuation set by the Board of Equalization must be affirmed.
The essence of Mr. Gilbreth’s case was the difference in the percent of increase in taxes between his property and the properties of five elected county officials.This type of analysis is not a recognized methodology for the appraisal of real property in appeals before the Commission. . 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 percentage of increases in individual taxpayers’ bills from one year to the next have no relevance on the question of what a willing buyer and seller would agree to as a purchase price for any given property.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization forJasperCountyfor the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $11,020.
Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.
If an application for review of this decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission and an order to the Collector to release and disburse the impounded taxes.§139.031.3 RSMo.If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Jasper 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.
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, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”
<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:192.75pt;
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 26thday of February, 2008, to:David Gilbreth, 315 East 22nd Street, Joplin, MO 64804, Complainant; Dean Dankelson, Prosecuting Attorney, 601 Pearl, Room 100, Joplin, MO 64801, Attorney for Respondent; Donald Davis, Assessor, 302 S. Main Street, Carthage, MO 64836; Bonnie Earl, Clerk; Stephen Holt, Collector, Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, MO 64836.