STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|DOUGLAS W. FIELDER,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-30001|
|ROBERT MURPHY, ASSESSOR,||)|
|JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
SETTING ASIDE HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On December 5, 2017, Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer) entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the decision of the Board of Equalization of Jackson County (BOE) concluding that Robert Murphy, Assessor, Jackson County, Missouri, (Respondent) did not intentionally assess the subject property at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money or at a ratio grossly excessive to the average 2017 residential assessment ratio for Jackson County. Douglas W. Fielder (Complainant) subsequently filed his Application for Review of Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order with the State Tax Commission (STC). Respondent made no reply.
We SET ASIDE the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer. Segments of the Hearing Officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into our Decision without further reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In June of 2016, Complainant purchased the subject property for $105,000. The property is a townhouse located in Mission Lake, Jackson County, Missouri. It is 1.5 story townhouse of 1,497 square feet with two bedrooms, two baths and a one-car garage. It was built in 1975 of average quality and in good condtition.
Respondent set the true value in money (TVM) for the subject property at $82,569 and classified the property as residential. The subject property’s assessed value, using the statutory ratio of 19%, was $15,688. Complainant filed an appeal of assessment with the BOE alleging a value of $60,000.
The BOE heard the appeal and determined TVM for the subject property as of January 1, 2017 was $105,000. The assessed value was set at $19,950, consistent with the statutory residential assessed ratio of 19%. Complainant filed a Complaint for Review of Assessment with the STC.
Complainant’s appeal to the STC alleged the ground for appeal as discrimination.
With regard to the issue of valuation of the subject property, Complainant testified that he purchased the property for $105,000 in June 2016 – six months prior to the valuation date of January 1, 2017 – and conceded that the BOE’s TVM of his property as of January 1, 2017 was correct.
With regard to the issue of discrimination, Complainant filed the following exhibits, which were admitted into evidence:
|A||Complainant’s Written Direct Testimony|
|B||BOE 2017 Support Report|
|C||Sale prices compared to the Assessor’s Value of 34 properties|
|D||Assessor Value comparison of properties in the range of 1450 to 2000 square feet|
|E||Mission Lake Assessor Values|
Respondent presented the testimony of Darlene Lackey (Lackey) and Richard Hillhouse (Hillhouse). Lackey testified as to the market value of the subject property. She also testified as to her report presented to the BOE (Exhibit 1) and a report she prepared for the STC hearing (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 2 has three comparable sales of properties that sold near the date of valuation. They were the same sales presented in Exhibit 1, however, Lackey was able to find additional information and make corrections as to age and square footage of the comparable sale properties. Lackey’s recommendation of value was $105,000.
Hillhouse testified as to Respondent’s computer statistical modeling and computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA). He testified as to the information collected and the adjustments made to reflect market trends in the various market groupings in Jackson County. Hillhouse testified that the County tempers market values that increase rapidly if the County is unable to visit the market area. He acknowledged that the result of such action is TVM being lower than the actual market. He acknowledged that the TVM of the parcels in the market area of the subject property may be low as Respondent has not conducted field review of the area since 2013. Respondent stated that area is scheduled for parcel field inspections in 2019.
|1||BOE 2017 Support Report|
|2||2017 STC Summary Report|
|3||IAAO Course Study of Richard Hillhouse|
|4||Mass Appraisal Trainee Experience Log Form|
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Complainant’s Points on Review
Complainant’s Application for Review does not allege error in the TVM of the subject property. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Hearing Officer’s Decision is erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, constitutes an abuse of discretion and is contrary to Missouri law in that Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence that there was an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of the property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same jurisdiction or that the level of an assessment was so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.
The STC finds the evidence as to discrimination unpersuasive, i.e., we do not find a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However, due to the assessment review schedule of Jackson County and the facts presented in this appeal, the STC finds the assessment to be unreasonable in light of the facts of this appeal. STC sets the value at $82,569 to reflect the Respondent’s original determination of TVM.
Standard of Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4). The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5). The Commission 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 Commission. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the TVM for the property under appeal. TVM is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
By statute, real property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
BOE Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
At the BOE hearing, there is no presumption that the Respondent’s valuation was correct. Section 137.115 RSMo (2000) as amended. In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation on residential property was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. The Assessor may rebut the presumption utilizing an appraisal of the property and the presentation of the “purchase prices from sales of at least three comparable properties”. “ ‘[C]omparable’ means that: (a) Such sale was closed at a date relevant to the property valuation; and (b) Such properties are not more than one mile from the site of the disputed property…Such property shall be within five hundred square feet in size…and resemble the disputed property in age, floor plan, number of rooms, and other relevant characteristics.” Section 137.115 RSMo.
Respondent valued the property at $82,569. Complainant appealed to the BOE. Respondent prepared a report and presented three comparable sale properties at the BOE hearing. (Exhibits B and 1) According to the exhibits presented, the comparable properties (a) sold between August 2016 to January 2017; and (b) were within the subject’s area, ranged in square footage of 1329 to 1427, and were similar in character. The properties sold from $92,000 to $114,000. The BOE determined a TVM of $105,000.
TVM and Assessed Value
Complainant conceded that the property’s TVM is $105,000 as determined by the BOE. No party has claimed that the property was assessed at a ratio other than the statutory residential property ratio of 19%.
Residential Ratio (Discrimination)
Complainant alleges discrimination – the assessment is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as it attempts to deprive and deny the Complainant the equal protection of the laws. “The purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.” Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Tp, 247 U.S. 350, 38 S. Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed. 1154 (1918).
The STC is required to correct any assessment or valuation that is arbitrary, capricious, improper, or unfair. Section 138.430 RSMo. However, “mere errors of judgment by officials will not support a claim of discrimination. There must be something more – something which in effect amounts to an intentional violation of the essential principle of practical uniformity. The good faith of such officers and the validy of their actions are presumed; when assailed, the burden of proof is upon the complaining party.” Sunday Lake Iron Co v Wakefield Tp, id, p. 353. The most difficult element to prove in this type of case is that there has been an intentional or systematic plan of the assessment officials to discriminate against the taxpayer.
A property owner may also show a systematic undervaluation, whether by an intentional plan or through use of an assessment ratio so grossly excessive as compared to the average ratio as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment by state officials of other taxable property in the same class, contravenes the constitutional right of one to be taxed upon the TVM of his property. See Sperry Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 695 S.W.2d 464, 468 (Mo. banc 1985).
In deciding whether the assessment of the subject property is “grossly excessive” or nothing more than a “de minimus error of judgment,” the STC must determine the common level of assessment for the class of property at issue within the taxing district. In Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 79, the Missouri Supreme Court reasoned:
The “common level of assessment” has been defined as a single ratio of true value used in assessing each property in a taxing district. [citation omitted] The “average level of assessment” means the “arithmetical mean of the varying percentages of true value applied by . . . the assessor in assessing properties within a taxing district.” [citation omitted]
A taxpayer has the right to have his “assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which others are taxed[.]” [citation omitted]
The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the proper method of analyzing discrimination compares the common level of assessment for similarly-situated properties to the actual level of assessment imposed on the subject property. Zimmerman v. Mid–America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015); Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 74. A necessary component of this comparison is the TVM of both the subject property and the similarly-situated properties, i.e., properties within the same class as the subject property. See Id.; see also Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 74. Once the TVM of the subject property and the similarly-situated properties has been determined, the STC can calculate at what percentage or ratio of TVM the subject property and the similarly-situated properties, respectively, have been assessed. Mid-America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d at 571. This determination requires a comparison not between the common level of assessment and the statutory assessment ratio, but between the common level of assessment and the actual level of assessment for the subject property. Id. at 574.
Ratio Studies and Defined Terms
Ratio studies provide information regarding the level and equity of assessments. Studies use a statistically significant number of properties within the same class as the subject property and compare an assessor’s value for those properties to a market value proxy for those properties. The market value proxy is either the sale prices of similar properties in the jurisdiction within a relevant time period or an independent appraisal of randomly selected properties. In the studies, the experts used the following terms:
- Appraisal Level: Overall ratio of assessor’s values to market values. Level measurements provide information about the degree to which goals or legal requirements are met. Estimates of appraisal level are based on measures of central tendency.
- Assessed Value: Legally authorized fraction of market value.
- Assessment: Determination of true value, classification, and location within taxing districts for ad valorem taxation.
- Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA): A process that uses a system of integrated components and software tools necessary to support the appraisal of a universe of properties through the use of mathematical models that represent the relationship between property values and supply/demand factors.
- Mean: The arithmetic average. It is created by adding together all individual samples and dividing by the number of samples.
- Median: The middle observation when the values of the data are arrayed. It divides the data into two parts.
- Ratio Study: Sales or appraisal based study designed to evaluate appraisal performance to determine if statutory requirements are met. Studies can be used to evaluate the degree of discrimination and to adjust assessed values on appealed properties to the common level.
Ratio studies play an important role in determining whether constitutional requirements are met. The design and sampling of the properties are important steps. The use of sales as a market value indicator requires that sales be screened to eliminate those that do not meet market requirements and those that may be outliers as testified by Respondent’s witness. Findings of a study are only as accurate as the data used.
Complainant presented purported sale prices of residential properties (29 properties) near the subject property. The sales were not verified as market, arm’s length transactions and the sales prices were not confirmed as correct and therefore cannot be used as a market value proxy for ratio study purposes. Complainant presented the Assessor’s determination of TVM for 239 properties but Complainant did not compare them with a market value proxy of either a verified sale or an appraisal. The data used failed to provide a reliable basis for the intial steps in a ratio study for the basis of a constitutional violation.
Complainant’s evidence did not establish the appraisal level for Jackson County residential properties, the assessment level for Jackson County residential properties, or that his property was being assessed at a ratio of TVM greater than the average ratio for property of its class (residential). Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690 & 695 (Mo. 1959) Evidence of unverified sale prices and assessments by the Respondent – does not establish discrimination. Complainant has not met the burden required when assailing the good faith of the assessment officers and the validy of their actions. Sunday Lake Iron Co v Wakefield Tp, id, p. 353.
In Missouri, the basis of assessment is the property’s true value in money. Article X, Section 3 requires taxes be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects within the territorial limits of the taxing authority. Article X, Section 14 of the Constitution of Missouri creates the STC and establishes as one of its primary duties, the equalization of assessments.
Section 138.410, RSMo., bestows upon the STC general supervisory powers over assessors and BOEs. It is the responsibility of the STC to inquire into the methods of assessment and determine whether the assessing officers are discharging their duties as required by law. The STC is required to correct any assessment or valuation that is arbitrary, capricious, improper, or unfair. Section 138.430 RSMo.
In excercising our supervisory authority in this appeal, we acknowledge the unique facts presented in this appeal including the time lapse from the last field review of the area and the acknowledgment that the Respondent’s determination of TVM of parcels within the subject’s area may be below market value. We find that the assessment of the subject parcel was unreasonable in light of the facts of this appeal. We order that the TVM be returned to the valuation as determined by the Respondent through the use of the CAMA.
The Decision of the Hearing Officer is SET ASIDE. The subject property’s TVM for tax years 2017-2018 is set at the valuation determined by the Respondent through the use of the CAMA, i.e. $82,569 or an assessed value of $15,688.
Segments of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, have been incorporated without reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the STC.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty 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, RSMo.
If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Jackson 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 this 20th day of March, 2018.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Will Kraus, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 20th day of March, 2018 to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Standard on Ratio Studies by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO)
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-30001|
|)||Parcel/Loc. No. 65-540-06-05-00-0-00-000|
|ROBERT MURPHY, ASSESSOR||)|
|JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Jackson County (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainant Douglas Fielder (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Robert Murphy, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri (Respondent) appeared by attorney Tamika Logan.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer).
Complainant appealed on the ground of discrimination. Respondent set a true value in money (TVM) of $82,569 ($15,688 Assessed Value). The BOE determined a TVM of $105,000 ($19,950 Assessed Value).
The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine whether there was an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money or at a ratio grossly excessive to the average 2017 residential assessment ratio for Jackson County.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of discrimination was presented at an evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2017, at the Jackson County Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 65-540-06-05-00-0-00-000. It is further identified as 727 E. 122nd Place, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. (Complaint for Review of Assessment)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property is located in the Mission Lake townhome community, which consist of 239 total townhomes. The subject is the middle residential townhome in a 5-plex. The subject has 1,497 square feet of livable area, is one and one-half stories, with two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a fireplace, and a 1-car attached garage. The subject was built on a slab in 1983. It has no view of the lake. (Exhibits B through E, Exhibits 1 and 2, and testimony of witnesses)
- Sale of Subject and Complainant’s Opinion of TVM. The subject property was purchased by Complainant on June 16, 2016 for $105,000. Complainant opined a TVM of the subject property, as of January 1, 2017, of between $105,000 and $110,000.
- Assessment. Respondent set the TVM for the subject property of $82,569, as of January 1, 2017, residential classification.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE determined a TVM of the subject property at $105,000, as of January 1, 2017.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered Exhibits A through E, and Complainant’s own testimony. Respondent objected to Exhibit D. The objection was overruled and the exhibit was received to be given such weight as the Hearing Officer deemed appropriate. Exhibits A through C and E were received without objection:
|A||Statement of Complainant|
|B||BOE Support Report|
|C||Comparison of Sold Properties in Mission Lake|
|D||Information of Other Homes in Mission Lake|
|E||Master Tax Compilation for Mission Lake|
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered Exhibits 1 through 4, and the testimony of Darlene Lachey (Lachey) and Richard Hillhouse (Hillhouse) all of which were received without objection:
|1||BOE Support Report|
|3||Unofficial Transcript by IAAO of Hillhouse|
|4||Mass Appraisal Trainee Experience Log of Hillhouse|
Lachey has been employed with Jackson County Assessment Department since 1994. She is a residential appraisal coordinator. She has served as senior residential appraiser for the county. She has completed the education and passed the certification examination as a residential appraiser in the State of Missouri. She testified as to the TVM of the subject property.
Hillhouse is employed with Jackson County Assessment Department since 2000. He is a senior research analyst. He has extensive education in mass appraisal. Hillhouse testified as to appraisal process for assessment purposes in Jackson County through use of a computerized assisted mass appraisal.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and establish an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money or at a ratio grossly excessive to the average 2017 residential assessment ratio for Jackson County.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC 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 BOE, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the TVM for the property under appeal. By statute, real property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Section 138.060 RSMo.
Section 138.060 RSMo. states in pertinent part that “[a]t any hearing before the state tax commission or a court of competent jurisdiction of an appeal of assessment from a first class charter county or a city not within a county, the assessor shall not advocate nor present evidence advocating a valuation higher than that value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period.”
As set forth previously, the BOE’ determination of TVM of the subject property was higher than that set by the Respondent. Nothing in Section 138.060 RSMo. prohibits the BOE from raising such TVM after hearing.
Complainant appealed on the ground of 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, 2017; 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.
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’.” Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (S.Ct. 1986), Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003.)
Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination
Complainant testified he only wanted his property to be assessed like the neighboring properties. The Hearing Officer understands this claim to essentially be an assertion of inequity in assessments. In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination or inequality in assessment, a taxpayer must establish that the property being appealed is not being assessed at either the statutory ratio for property of its class or it is being assessed at a ratio of TVM greater than the average ratio for the same class of property in the county. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690 & 695 (Mo. 1959). Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties (in this appeal upon properties solely within the Mission Lake townhome community) does not prove discrimination.
Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. 1958).
Complainant provided no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer could find that the assessment ratio on the property under appeal was grossly excessive in comparison to the average residential assessment for Jackson County. There is no evidence on this record whereby the Hearing Officer can reach any conclusion as to the average assessment ratio for residential property in Jackson County. Accordingly, there is no basis to find that Mr. Fielder’s property is not being assessed in the same manner as other residential property in Jackson County.
The assessed value for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED.
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. Section 138.432, RSMo.
The Collector of Jackson 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 December 5, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 5th day of December, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
firstname.lastname@example.org; WMiller2@jacksongov.org; email@example.com
 Complainant noted a difference in the recommended value of Lachey between Exhibit B ($105,000) and Exhibit 1 ($110,000), with both recommendations being reflected as made by Lachey on 8/15/16. Lachey testified her recommended amount was $110,000.