STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
| DIANA GASSOFF, | ) | |
| ) | Appeal No. 21-18389 | |
| Complainants, | ) | Parcel/Locator Nos. 20K620523 |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE HEARING OFFICER DECISION UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
HOLDING
On July 29, 2022, Senior Hearing Officer Benjamin Slawson (Hearing Officer) entered a Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) assessment of the subject property as of January 1, 2021. Diana Gassoff (Complainant) and Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent), by and through their respective counsels, subsequently filed a Joint Application for Review of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer along with their stipulation (Appendix A).
The Hearing Officer’s Decision is SET ASIDE for the sole purpose of allowing Complainant and Respondent to submit their agreed-upon stipulation as to the value of the subject property as of January 1, 2021, to be placed on an agenda for a Meeting of the State Tax Commission as an item for a vote of the Commission.
Segments of the Hearing officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into the Commission’s Decision and Order without further reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 20K620523. It is further identified as 1235 Hampton Park Drive, Richmond Heights, St. Louis County, Missouri. The subject property is classified as residential real property.
Respondent valued the subject property at $1,371,000, as of January 1, 2021. Complainant appealed to the BOE. The BOE valued the subject property at $1,235,000, as of January 1, 2021. Complainant timely filed an appeal with the STC, and a hearing officer was assigned. The appeal proceeded to an evidentiary hearing.
The Hearing Officer subsequently issued his Decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming the BOE’s valuation and finding that Complainant had failed to appear for the hearing and, therefore, had failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the BOE’s decision.
Complainant and Respondent subsequently filed their joint application for review. Section 138.432. In their joint Application for Review, the parties stated that the reason for filing the joint Application for Review was to request the Commission to set aside the Hearing Officer’s Decision because the parties had reached a mutual agreement and stipulation regarding the value of the subject property in Appeal No. 21-18389 prior to the Hearing Officer’s Decision becoming final. The parties requested that the Hearing Officer’s Decision be set aside for the sole purpose of submitting the agreed upon stipulation, shown in Appendix A. The parties’ joint Application for Review was taken under submission.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Point on Review
In their single point on review, Complainant and Respondent together request the Commission to set aside the Hearing Officer’s Decision for the sole purpose of allowing Complainant and Respondent to submit their agreed-upon stipulation as to the value of the subject property as of January 1, 2022, to be placed on an agenda for a Meeting of the State Tax Commission as an item for a vote of the Commission.
Standard of Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a hearing officer of the STC may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the STC. Section 138.432[1]. The STC may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432. The STC may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the STC. Section 138.432.
Commission’s Ruling
For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds the parties’ argument to be persuasive. After reviewing the whole record and having considered the Hearing Officer’s Decision and the Application for Review of the parties, the Commission sets aside the Hearing Officer’s decision for the sole purpose of allowing the parties to submit their agreed-upon stipulation to be placed on an agenda for a Meeting of the State Tax Commission as an item for a vote of the Commission.
Contested cases before an administrative agency may be resolved by stipulations or agreements among the parties. See Section 536.060. Here, along with their Application for Review, the parties filed their agreed-upon stipulation. The stipulation specifically provided that the parties “reached an agreed settlement by stipulation” for Appeal No. 21-18389 such that the proper assessed valuation for the appeal for tax years 2021 and 2022 should be as follows:
| APPEAL NO | CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE | STIPULATED ASSESSED VALUE | STIPULATED APPRAISED VALUE |
| 21-18389 | $234,650 | $209,000 | $1,100,000 |
ORDER
The Hearing Officer’s Decision is SET ASIDE for the sole purpose of allowing Complainant and Respondent to submit their agreed-upon stipulation as to the value of the subject property as of January 1, 2021, to be placed on an agenda for a Meeting of the State Tax Commission as an item for a vote of the Commission. Segments of the Hearing Officer’s Decision, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, may have been incorporated without reference in this final decision of the Commission.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140 within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.
If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8.
If no judicial review is made within 30 days or if the Commission enters its order approving the parties’ stipulation, this decision and order is deemed final, and the Collector of St. Louis 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.
SO ORDERED September 23, 2022.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Gary Romine, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on September 23, 2022, to:
Counsel for Complainant,
Counsel for Respondent
Collector
Clerk
Noah Shepard
Legal Coordinator
[1] All statutory citations are to RSMo. 2000, as amended, unless indicated otherwise.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
| DIANA GASSOFF, | ) | |
| ) | Appeal No. 21-18389 | |
| Complainants, | ) | Parcel/Locator Nos. 20K620523 |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
Diana Gassoff (Complainant) appeals the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decision finding the true value in money (TVM) of the subject residential property on January 1, 2021, was $1,235,000. Complainant alleges overvaluation but did not indicate an opinion of value on her Complaint for Review that was filed with the State Tax Commission. Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence to support the asserted claim of overvaluation. The assessment of Respondent is affirmed.[1]
Facts
The evidentiary hearing was scheduled for July 21, 2022, at 11:00 A.M. Respondent timely appeared at the evidentiary hearing in person and through counsel Tim Bowe. Complainant did not appear. Complainant did not seek a continuance or otherwise communicate any intent to proceed with the appeal.
Complainant Did Not Prove Overvaluation
The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued. Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing and produced no evidence admitted into the record to support the claim. Complainant’s failure to appear and to present any evidence necessarily means Complainant fails to meet Complainant’s burden of proof. [2]
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the BOE is affirmed. The TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2021, is $1,235,000, classified as residential property.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the certificate of service for this decision. The application “shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.” Section 138.432. The application must be in writing, and may be mailed to the State Tax Commission, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, or emailed to Legal@stc.mo.gov. A copy of the application must be sent to each person 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. Section 138.432.
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of St. Louis 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.
SO ORDERED July 29, 2022.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Benjamin C. Slawson
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on July 29, 2022 to:
Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
Noah Shepard
Legal Coordinator
[1]Complainant timely filed a complaint for review of assessment. The State Tax Commission (STC) has authority to hear and decide Complainant’s appeal. Mo. Const. art. X, sec. 14; Section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as amended.
[2] For over 150 years, Missouri law has recognized the self-evident proposition that “if there be no evidence sufficient in law to make a prima facie case on this issue, plaintiff cannot be entitled to recover.” Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131, 135 (Mo. 1867).