David & Jennifer White (Taney)

May 18th, 2010

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

DAVID & JENNIFER WHITE,)

)

Complainants,)

)

v.) Appeal(s) Number 09-89522 & 09-89523

)

JAMES STRAHAN, ASSESSOR,)

TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

 

CORRECTION TO DECISION AND ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

 

The Hearing Officer has been provided a copy of page 5594 of the Taney County – Real Estate Tax Book for tax year 2009.Said tax book shows that the residential assessed valuation for the property in Appeal 09-89523 – parcel number 19-5-15-2-9-8 – certified by the County Clerk to the County Collector was $845, not $970.Said document is received into the record as Commission Exhibit A.

The Hearing Officer has been provided a copy of the Duplicate Tax Payment Receipt for the property in Appeal 09-89523.Said tax receipt shows that the residential assessed valuation for the property was $845, not $970.Said document is received into the record as Commission Exhibit B.

Therefore, the Decision and Order issued on May 18, 2010, is corrected nunc pro tunc as herein after set out.Matter set out in brackets – [ ] – is stricken from the original decision, matter in bold italic is new, correcting language.


HOLDING

 

Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor in Appeal 09-89522 is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 09-89522 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $619,999, residential assessed value of $117,800.

Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor in Appeal 09-89523 is [AFFIRMED] SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 09-89523 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $[5,105] 4,445, residential assessed value of $[970] 845.

Complainant, David White, appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by County Counselor, Robert Paulson.

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

ISSUE

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Taney County Board of Equalization.The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2009.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 these appeals is proper.Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the Taney County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on April 28, 2010, in Courtroom 4 of the Taney County Justice Center, Forsyth, Missouri.


2.Assessment.The subject property in Appeal 09-89522 was appraised by the Assessor at a value of $726,421, assessed residential value of $138,020.The Board of Equalization reduced the value to $619,999, assessed value of $117,800.The assessed value certified by the

The subject property in Appeal 09-89523 was appraised by the Assessor at a value of $5,105, assessed residential value of $970.The Board of Equalization sustained the value.The certification by the Taney County Clerk of the residential assessed value was $845, a true value in money of $4,445.[1]

3.Subject Properties.The subject property in Appeal 09-89522 is located at 4645 State Hwy. 86, Ridgedale, Missouri. The property is identified by parcel number 19-2-10-3-16-1.The subject property in Appeal 09-89523 is located on 1st Avenue, Ridgedale, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 19-5-15-2-9-8.

4.Complainant’s Evidence.Mr. White testified in his own behalf.He gave his opinion of value for the home in Appeal 09-89522 to be $496,500, but had no opinion or evidence to establish the value of the land for the parcel.Mr. White’s opinion of value for the lot in Appeal 09-89523 was $250, based it was considered to be a membership lot for Oakmont and would only be purchased to acquire membership in Oakmont.Complainant offered into evidence the following exhibits:

APPEAL

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

09-89522

A

News Article/Dec 08 CPI/Calculation of Owner’s Value

09-89522

B

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Malchow Property/Photograph

09-89522

C

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Lancaster Property/Photograph

09-89522

D

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Coffelt Property/Photograph

09-89523

A

Assessor’s Map on Kincaid Property

09-89523

B

Photograph of Kincaid Property and Subject Property.

 

All the exhibits were received into evidence.

There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.[2]

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, 2009, for either property.

5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered into evidence the following exhibits in Appeal 09-89522.

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

1

Property Record Card on Subject

2

Property Record Card on Holsteen Property

3

Property Record Card on Coffelt Property

 

Each of the exhibits were received into evidence.No exhibits were tendered on behalf of Respondent in Appeal 09-89523.

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.[3]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[4]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.[5]Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment, therefore, the values determined by the Board stand.The assessed value set by the Board of $970 on July 16, 2009, was not the assessed value certified to the Collector by the County Clerk.[6]

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.[7]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[8]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[9]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.[10]

 

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.[11]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.[12]Neither party presented evidence of value developed under any of these methods of valuation.The property record cards presented by Respondent reflect the value determined by the given property under a mass appraisal costing system.Such evidence does not constitute the type of cost appraisal performed in appraisal reports generally submitted in appeal before the Commission.

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, 2009.[13]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.”[14]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15]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.[16]

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[17]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.The owner failed to come forward with evidence to support his opinion of value for either property based upon a recognized methodology for appraisal of property.Therefore, no probative weight can be given to the owner’s opinion of value.

ORDER

The assessed valuation[s] for the subject [properties] property in Appeal 09-89522 as determined by the Board of Equalization for Taney County for the subject tax day [are] is AFFIRMED.The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 09-89522 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $117,800.

The assessed valuation for the subject property in Appeal 09-89522 as certified to the County Collector by the County Clerk is AFFIRMED.The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 09-89523 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $[970] 845.

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, MO65102-0146, 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. [18]

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Taney 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 May 27, 2010.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer

 

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor in Appeal 09-89522 is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 09-89522 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $619,999, residential assessed value of $117,800.

Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor in Appeal 09-89523 is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 09-89523 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $5,105, residential assessed value of $970.

Complainant, David White, appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by County Counselor, Robert Paulson.

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

ISSUE

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Taney County Board of Equalization.The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2009.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 these appeals is proper.Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the Taney County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on April 28, 2010, in Courtroom 4 of the Taney County Justice Center, Forsyth, Missouri.


2.Assessment.The subject property in Appeal 09-89522 was appraised by the Assessor at a value of $726,421, assessed residential value of $138,020.The Board of Equalization reduced the value to $619,999, assessed value of $117,800.

The subject property in Appeal 09-89523 was appraised by the Assessor at a value of $5,105, assessed residential value of $970.The Board of Equalization sustained the value.

3.Subject Properties.The subject property in Appeal 09-89522 is located at 4645 State Hwy. 86, Ridgedale, Missouri. The property is identified by parcel number 19-2-10-3-16-1.The subject property in Appeal 09-89523 is located on 1st Avenue, Ridgedale, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 19-5-15-2-9-8.

4.Complainant’s Evidence.Mr. White testified in his own behalf.He gave his opinion of value for the home in Appeal 09-89522 to be $496,500, but had no opinion or evidence to establish the value of the land for the parcel.Mr. White’s opinion of value forthe lot in Appeal 09-89523 was $250, based it was considered to be a membership lot for Oakmont and would only be purchased to acquire membership in Oakmont.Complainant offered into evidence the following exhibits:

<%2

APPEAL

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

09-89522

A

News Article/Dec 08 CPI/Calculation of Owner’s Value

09-89522

B

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Malchow Property/Photograph

09-89522

C

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Lancaster Property/Photograph

09-89522

D

Assessor’s Map & Assessed Value on Coffelt Property/Photograph

09-89523

A

Assessor’s Map on Kincaid Property

09-89523

B

Photograph of Kincaid Property and Subject Property.