State Tax Commission of Missouri
DRURY PLAZA CHESTERFIELD, LLLP, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 09-10246
)
MICHAEL BROOKS, )
ACTING ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
OVERRULING HEARING OFFICER DECISION UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
And
REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
HOLDING
Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer granting Motion for Summary Judgment under section 137.345 RSMo is overruled. Motion for Summary Judgment denied.
Appeal is remanded to Senior Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor, for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Complaint for Review of Assessment received by the Commission October 15, 2009. In addition to the grounds of Overvaluation and Discrimination the Complaint asserted as a ground for appeal – violation of Section 137.345, RSMo.
2. Complaint acknowledge on November 4, 2009. Order setting Discovery Schedule and Procedure issued February 4, 2010.
3. Complainant’s Motions Relating to Respondent’s Discovery Answers received by the Commission May 10, 2010. Included in this filing was Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its claim that Respondent’s assessment of the Subject Property for the 2009 tax year was in violation of Section 137.345, RSMo.
4. By Order issued on May 11, 2010, Respondent was given until and including
June 7, 2010, to file Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. No Response was filed.
5. On June 15, 2010, the Commission received Complainant’s Submission Relating to the Commission’s Order on Pending Motions and renewed its pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
6. On July 26, 2010, Senior Hearing Officer issued his Decision and Order granting Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, setting aside the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor on the subject property for tax year 2009, and setting the true value in money for the property under appeal at $14,000,000, a commercial assessed value of $4,480,000.
7. On August 25, 2010, Respondent filed his Application for Review of the Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order. On September 27, 2010, Complainant filed Complainant’s Response to the Application for Review. On October 19, 2010, Respondent filed Respondent’s Reply.
1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.[2] Any party may file a written motion for summary judgment upon allegations that there are no material facts requiring an evidentiary hearing before the Commission.[3]
2. Motion for Summary Judgment. Complainant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment[4] on May 5, 2010.[5] By Order issued May 11, 2010, Respondent was given until and including June 7, 2010, to file Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. No Response was received on or before June 7, 2010.
3. Factual Allegations Deemed Admitted. In the absence of a Response, all factual allegations contained in Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, having not been denied, are deemed admitted.[6]
4. 2009 Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property under appeal for the 2009-10 assessment at $19,540,700, commercial assessed value of $6,253,020. The Board of Equalization sustained that assessment.[7]
5. 2007 Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property under appeal for the 2007-08 assessment at $23,698,300, commercial assessed value of $7,583,460. Complainant appealed the assessment to the Board of Equalization. The Board reduced the appraised value to $14,000,000, commercial assessed value of $4,480,000.
6. 2007 Appeal to Board – Successful Appeal. The action of the Board in reducing the appraised value of the property under appeal in 2007 to $14,000,000 constituted a “successful appeal”[8] on the part of the taxpayer.
7. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 355 E. Chesterfield Center, Chesterfield, Missouri. The property is identified by parcel number 18S230433.
8. 2009 Assessment Procedure: The subject property was appraised and assessed anew for the 2009 assessment cycle by Respondent. The assessment stood alone and was independently determined without any reference to, consideration of, or basis in the determination of value by the Board for the 2007 assessment of $14,000,000.[9] Respondent has no documents that embodies, relates, reflects, or refers to the Assessor basing the valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2009, on the valuation of $14,000,000 determined by the Board of Equalization for the 2007 tax year.[10]
9. Failure to Base 2009 Assessment on 2007 Basis of the Successful Appeal. Respondent did not base the 2009 assessment of the subject property on the basis of $14,000,000 established by the taxpayer’s successful appeal in 2007.
10. Material Fact In Dispute. The fact of what the true value in money as of
January 1, 2009, is in dispute.
11. Respondent’s Argument. Respondent’s argument in his Application for Review is that the 2007 appeal by Complainant was not a successful appeal under Section 137.345 because the 2007 valuation was the subject of an appeal pending before the Commission when the Assessor set the 2009 assessment.[11] Therefore, Respondent asserts the appeal process has not been concluded as to the 2007 valuation for a successful appeal under the statute. In other words, Respondent takes the position that the 2007 appeal must be “final” for the taxpayer to claim the benefit of the statute.[12]
12. Complainant’s Response. Complainant presents two lines of argument in response. First, Complainant takes the position that the plain and ordinary meaning of Section 137.345(5) does not require an appeal to be final. The second argument is that St. Louis County has repeatedly recognized the value of the property as of January 1, 2007, to be $14,000,000.[13]
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Constitutional Basis for Assessment
Article X, Section 4(b) states, in relevant part, “Property …, shall be assessed for tax purposes at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass.” 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]
When a property is appealed to the Commission on the issue of its value, the Commission is under the constraint to find the value of the property. Section 137.345(5) must be read and applied in light of the requirement of the constitution. The statute requires that:
“[I]n every instance where a taxpayer has appealed to the board of equalization or the state tax commission the assessment of the taxpayer’s property, real or personal, and that appeal has been successful, then in the next following and all subsequent years, the basis upon which the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property shall be the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis.”
It must first be observed that the burden of compliance created by the legislature in the enactment of this provision of law is upon the assessor. It is the assessor that is instructed to base future assessments of the subject property on the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis. There is no requirement that either the board of equalization or the state tax commission assess property under the standard established by this statute. The specific identification of the “assessor” as the one to base future assessments on a successful appeal to the board or the commission implies that both the board and the commission are excluded from the requirement created by the statute.[15] The statute simply makes no requirement that the Commission base its valuation on any prior assessment.
The Commission is under the obligation established by the constitution to assess the property in this appeal at its value, i.e. true value in money – fair market value, irrespective of whether the assessor addressed the 2009 valuation in accordance with Section 137.345(5). The Hearing Officer’s granting of summary judgment failed to recognize this controlling fact. The valuation set by the Hearing Officer was an arbitrary assessment, not in compliance with the requirement of the constitution to find value, and not supported by evidence in the record as to the value of the property on January 1, 2009.
Remedy Not Authorized by Statute
The remedy imposed by the Hearing Officer of setting the assessed value from the appraised value set by the Board for 2007 is not authorized by Section 137.345(5). The statute does not provide that if the assessor fails to comply that the remedy is to arbitrarily go back to the prior assessed value. The statute sets a requirement for the assessor, but does not establish a remedy if, as in this instance, the assessor fails to meet the requirement. The Commission is not given authority under the statute to create the remedy which the Hearing Officer imposed.
Because the statute only places a requirement on the assessor and does not give authorization to the Commission to default the value of the property under appeal to the prior assessment cycle’s value, the Hearing Officer went beyond the language of the statute in setting value and assessing the property.
ORDER
The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be overruled. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The appeal is remanded to the Hearing Officer for further proceedings.
Interlocutory Order
This Order overruling the Decision of the Hearing Officer and denying the Motion for Summary Judgment is not a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization under §138.431.5, RSMo. It is an interlocutory order. It is not an appealable order under §§138.431.5 and 138.432, RSMo, until a Hearing Officer decision and order on the issue of valuation of the subject property is issued. At such time as the Commission may rule on an Application for Review of the Hearing Officer’s Decision under the remand of this Order, the Commission’s ruling herein may be raised as a point under a timely filed Petition for Judicial Review.[16]
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the protested taxes pending further order of the Commission, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8, RSMo.
SO ORDERED March 15, 2011.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy B. Holman, Commissioner
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE. Motion for Summary Judgment Granted. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $14,000,000, commercial assessed value of $4,480,000. Complainant appeared by Counsel, Lisa S. Leary, Associate General Counsel. Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Paula J. Lemerman.
Case submitted on Motion for Summary Judgment and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of discrimination, overvaluation, and violation of Section 137.345, RSMo, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Commission takes up Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to determine whether as a matter of law under Section 137.345, Complainant is entitled to a determination of value based upon the provisions of Section 137.345. 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. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.[17] Any party may file a written motion for summary judgment upon allegations that there are no material facts requiring an evidentiary hearing before the Commission.[18]
2. Motion for Summary Judgment. Complainant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment[19] on May 5, 2010.[20] By Order issued May 11, 2010, Respondent was given until and including June 7, 2010, to file Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. No Response was received on or before June 7, 2010. No Response has been received as of the date of issuance of this Decision and Order.
3. Factual Allegations Deemed Admitted. In the absence of a Response, all factual allegations contained in Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, having not been denied, are deemed admitted.[21]
4. 2009 Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property under appeal for the 2009-10 assessment at $19,540,700, commercial assessed value of $6,253,020. The Board of Equalization sustained that assessment.[22]
5. 2007 Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property under appeal for the 2007-08 assessment at $23,698,300, commercial assessed value of $7,583,460. Complainant appealed the assessment to the Board of Equalization. The Board reduced the appraised value to $14,000,000, commercial assessed value of $4,480,000.
6. 2007 Appeal to Board – Successful Appeal. The action of the Board in reducing the appraised value of the property under appeal in 2007 to $14,000,000 constituted a “successful appeal”[23] on the part of the taxpayer.
7. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 355 E. Chesterfield Center, Chesterfield, Missouri. The property is identified by parcel number 18S230433.
8. 2009 Assessment Procedure: The subject property was appraised and assessed anew for the 2009 assessment cycle by Respondent. The assessment stood alone and was independently determined without any reference to, consideration of, or basis in the determination of value by the Board for the 2007 assessment of $14,000,000.[24] Respondent has no documents that embodies, relates, reflects, or refers to the Assessor basing the valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2009, on the valuation of $14,000,000 determined by the Board of Equalization for the 2007 tax year.[25]
9. Failure to Base 2009 Assessment on 2007 Basis of the Successful Appeal. Respondent did not base the 2009 assessment of the subject property on the basis of $14,000,000 established by the taxpayer’s successful appeal in 2007.
10. No Material Facts In Dispute. There are no material facts in dispute with regard to Respondent’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 137.345.5, RSMo. Respondent has admitted that the 2009 assessment was not established from the basis of $14,000,000 resulting from Complainant’s successful appeal of the 2007 assessment to the Board of Equalization. There is no material fact in dispute that the Board of Equalization’s sustaining of the 2009 assessment could not have been on the basis of $14,000,000 set by the 2007 Board assessment.[26]
11. Discrimination and Overvaluation Claims. The grounds for appeal of Discrimination and Overvaluation are not addressed in this Decision and Order. This Decision and Order is deemed a final determination on the issue of the failure to comply with Section 137.345.5, RSMo. In the event that, upon judicial review of this Decision and Order, it is determined that Complainant was not, as a matter of law, entitled to the relief granted under the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Commission will proceed to address the claims of Discrimination and Overvaluation through the evidentiary process before the Commission.
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.[27]
Presumption In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[28] The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence. A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary. In the present case, the presumption of correct assessment has been rebutted as a matter of fact and law, in that the Board’s sustaining of the Assessor’s 2009 assessment condoned the failure of the Assessor to base the increase for 2009 on the basis established by the Complainant’s successful appeal of the 2007 valuation, in contravention of Section 137.345.5, RSMo.
Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[29] The ground raised by Taxpayer in its Motion for Summary Judgment is that in assessing the Property at $19,540,700 for the 2009 tax year, the Assessor failed to comply with Section 137.345.5, RSMo., which mandates that:
“[I]n every instance where a taxpayer has appealed to the board of equalization or the state tax commission the assessment of the taxpayer’s property, real or personal, and that appeal has been successful, then in the next following and all subsequent years, the basis upon which the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property shall be the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis.”
In 2007, the Assessor originally assessed the Property as of January 1, 2007, at $23,698,300.[30] Complainant (hereinafter, Drury) timely filed an appeal to the Board of Equalization, and the Board lowered the total appraised value to $14,000,000 for the tax years 2007 and 2008.[31] Drury’s 2007 appeal was therefore “successful,” in that the assessment was reduced from $23,698,300 to $14,000,000.
In 2009, the Assessor increased the appraised value of the Property to $19,540,700.[32] Drury timely filed an appeal to the Board of Equalization which was denied by the Board failing to set aside the Assessor’s valuation which did not comply with Section 137.345, RSMo.[33] Drury filed its Complaint for Review of Assessment in this Appeal,[34] citing as the basis for its appeal overvaluation, discrimination, and violation of Section 137.345, RSMo.
The Assessor’s valuation of the Property as of January 1, 2009, at $19,540,700 is 39.58%[35] higher than the value of $14,000,000 established for the same property as of January 1, 2007, by the Board of Equalization. Following the taxpayer’s successful appeal of the 2007 assessment, the Assessor had a statutory duty, pursuant to Section 137.345.5, to base future valuations of the Property on the assessment determined by the Board of Equalization in 2007. The Assessor’s responses to Drury’s discovery requests make it clear that the Assessor failed to do so, in violation of the statute.
Interrogatory No. 8 of Complainant’s First Interrogatories Directed to Respondent required Respondent to “Identify any and all changes in the Property, the applicable market conditions, or otherwise, from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2009, which support an increase in the value of the Property from $14,000,000 to $19,540,700.” Respondent, through his representative, Sandra J. Youtzy, Manager, Real Property Appraisal, answered under oath as follows: “Respondent is unable to respond to Interrogatory 5 [sic – should read 8] because the subject property is appraised and assessed anew each valuation cycle. Each assessment stands alone, and is independently determined.”[36] Complainant also propounded on Respondent its First Request for Production of Documents directed to Respondent, which requested the following in Request No. 7: “Each and every document that embodies, relates, reflects or refers to the determination of the value of $19,540,700 for the Property.” Respondent responded by attaching the Assessor’s “Property Record Card” which Respondent stated “contains the Respondent’s original valuation for the subject property for 2009.”[37] Nowhere in the Property Record Card is the determination of value of $14,000,000 by the Board of Equalization for the 2007 tax year mentioned or referenced.
Complainant’s Request No. 8 in its First Request for Production of Documents requested: “each and every document that embodies, relates, reflects or refers to the Assessor basing the valuation of the Property as of January 1, 2009, on the valuation of $14,000,000 determined by the Board of Equalization for the 2007 tax year.” Respondent stated in response: “There are no documents responsive to this request.”
The only Missouri court which has interpreted Section 137.345.5 is the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District, in Shipman v. DNS Electronic Materials, Inc.,[38] in which the Court held that the Assessor of St. Charles County had violated the statutory requirement under Section 137.345.5, RSMo to use the valuation established by the taxpayer’s successful appeal of the assessor’s previous valuation as the basis for subsequent valuations.
In Shipman, DNS Electronics had filed an appeal of the tax assessment of its real property for 2001, which assessment was reduced on appeal from $13,448,870 to $3,906,595 for the years 2001-2002.[39] The Assessor reassessed the Property for the years 2003-2004 and valued the Property at $12,034,890. DNS was forced to appeal again, and argued that the Assessor had failed to comply with Section 137.345.5. In making its decision, the Court of Appeals focused on the meaning of the word “basis” in the statutory language requiring that “the basis upon which the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property shall be the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis.” (emphasis added). The Court held that “there must be some substantive connection between the valuation of property established through a successful appeal and subsequent assessments of that property. It must be the “basis.” (emphasis in original).
The Assessor of St. Charles argued that he did use the valuation set by the successful 2001 appeal as the basis for the 2003-2004 assessment but then “applied their own assessment tools, such as ‘internal ratios, goodness to fit statistics, and adjust[ed] it accordingly for fair market value and uniformity throughout the county.’” The Court of Appeals found the Assessor had paid only “lip-service” to the mandate of the statute, stating that under his theory “an assessor could look at a STC decision after losing an appeal, consider it for a moment, and then in the next assessment cycle reassess it at precisely the same value that the STC rejected in the decision. . . . So long as an assessor could make a determination that the market value is higher than the valuation determined in an appeal, he could compel the taxpayer to appeal the property valuation every new assessment cycle.” The Court held that such an interpretation would render the statute “meaningless.”[40]
In this appeal, the Assessor of St. Louis County has not even bothered to pay “lip-service” to the mandates of Section 137.345.5. The Assessor states clearly in his responses to Complainant’s discovery requests that “the subject property is appraised and assessed anew each valuation cycle. Each assessment stands alone, and is independently determined.” This admission is in direct contradiction to the mandate of Section 137.345.5 as interpreted by the Court of Appeals that “the newly assessed value must be based on that set by the appeal.” The Assessor further admits that “there are no documents” that embody, relate, reflect or refer to the Assessor basing the valuation of the Property as of January 1, 2009, on the valuation of $14,000,000 determined for the 2007 tax year in Drury’s successful appeal. This is because the Assessor did not base the 2009 valuation on the $14,000,000 value set in the 2007 appeal, as required by the statute. The only document which Respondent produced in response to Drury’s request for documents that reflect the Assessor’s “determination of the value of $19,540,700 for the Property” is the Property Record Card, which contains no reference to the 2007 appeal or the $14,000,000 value established in that successful appeal.
The basis set by the Taxpayer’s successful appeal to the Board of Equalization in 2007 was $14,000,000. It is from the value of $14,000,000 that “the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property.”[41] To permit the Assessor to ignore the $14,000,000 value simply on the ground that the “property is appraised and assessed anew each valuation cycle”[42] is to sanction the Assessor’s intentional disregard for Section 137.345.5. To condone this course of action this would place taxpayers under the burden of appealing assessment after assessment even when they had previously been successful. This is the harm the statute seeks to prevent.
The 2009 assessment in the amount of $19,540,700 is in violation of Section 137.345.5. It is an unlawful assessment and must be set aside. The statute does not provide the exact remedy available to the taxpayer when an assessor ignores the mandate of the statute. However, based upon case law from two cases involving failure of an assessor to comply with other assessment statutes provides guidance for this case.
Upon a finding an increase in assessment to be void, the increase may be stricken from the assessment records and the prior assessment stands.[43] The basis provision of Section 137.345.5 is mandatory and the failure of the assessor to establish any increase for the 2009-2010 assessment on the $14,000,000 basis established by the Board decision for the 2007-08 assessment renders the increase in valuation and any tax computed thereon void.[44]
Based on the foregoing undisputed facts and the controlling legal precedent cited Complainant is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $4,480,000.
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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. [45]
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 139.031.8, 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 July 26, 2010.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
[1] Findings of Fact 1 through 10 are those determined by the Hearing Officer in his Decision – pp. 2 – 3.
[9] Request No. 8 – Complainant’s First Request for Production of Documents Directed to Respondent; Interrogatory No. 8 – Complainant’s First Interrogatories Directed to Respondent
[11] Due to the fact that Respondent did not file a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment the existence of Appeal 07-12983, which is for the same property that is the subject of appeal 09-10246, was not brought to the attention of the Hearing Officer. There was no reason for the Hearing Officer to have conducted a search of all appeals from St. Louis County for 2007 to determine if the subject property being appealed in 2009 had also been appealed in 2007.
[15] Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition. Pp. 1635
[16] See, Parker v. Wallace, 431 S.W.2d 136, 137 (Mo. 1968); McCormack v. Maplewood-Richmond Heights School Dist. Bd. of Educ. 935 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); Reis v. Peabody Coal Co., 935 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); Gilmore v. Erb, 900 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995).
[24] Request No. 8 – Complainant’s First Request for Production of Documents Directed to Respondent; Interrogatory No. 8 – Complainant’s First Interrogatories Directed to Respondent
[26] The Property Record Card for the 2009 assessment, provided in response to Document Request Nos. 1, 7 & 11 makes no reference to the Assessor having use the 2007 valuation of $14,000,000 as the basis from which the 2009 assessment was made.
[28] 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).
[29] ITT Commercial Fin. Corp v. Mid-American Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993); see also Callaway County Golf Partners v. Ronald Craighead, Assessor, Callaway County, Missouri, Decision and Order in Appeal Number 99-46501, Missouri State Tax Commission, August 10, 2000 (2000 WL 1146304); Supreme Court Rule 74.04(c); 12 CSR 30-3.050.
[30] See, Notice of Assessment for 2007 attached as Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Lisa S. Leary attached to Motion for Summary Judgment.
[31] See, Notice by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the Appraised Value of the Property to $14,000,000, attached as Exhibit B to the Affidavit.
[33] See, Notice by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization attached to the Affidavit as Exhibit D.
[35] $19,540,700 – $14,000,000 = $5,540,700 ÷ $14,000,000 = .39576 or 39.58% rounded. Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 3 set forth a 28% increase in value.
[36] See, Respondent’s Response to Complainant’s First Interrogatories Directed to Respondent, previously filed with the Commission .
[37] See, Respondent’s Response to Complainant’s First Request for Production of Documents Directed to Respondent, previously filed with the Commission by Respondent.