Gerald Ludwig v. Marlene Graves, Assessor Linn County

November 21st, 2017

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

GERALD LUDWIG, )  
  )  
             Complainant )  
  )  
v. ) Appeal No. 17-66500
  ) Parcel/Loc. No. 04011100000000200
MARLENE GRAVES,  ASSESSOR, )  
LINN COUNTY, MISSOURI, )  
  )  
Respondent )  

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Linn County (BOE) is AFFIRMED.  Complainant Gerald Ludwig (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.

Complainant Gerald Ludwig appeared pro se.

Marlene Graves, Assessor of Linn County (Respondent) appeared pro se.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer).

 

ISSUE

Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation and improper grading of his agricultural property.  The BOE determined a true value in money (TVM) of $79,900.  The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2017.

 

 FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on November 8, 2017, at the Linn County Courthouse, Linneus, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 04011100000000200.  It is further identified as 17788 Highway MM, Browning, Linn County, Missouri.  (Complaint for Review of Assessment)
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of 8.1 acres of agricultural property and a one acre residential lot improved by a 1,567 square-foot, one-story single-family home built in 1984.  (Exhibit 14)  The subject property improvement has three bedrooms and two full bathrooms.  (Exhibit 14). The agricultural property was assessed as Grade VI property.
  5. Assessment. Respondent set the TVM for the subject property of $78,600 residential and $1,300 agricultural, as of January 1, 2017.
  6. Board of Equalization. The BOE set the TVM for the subject property of $78,600 residential and $1,300 agricultural, as of January 1, 2017.
  7. Complainant’s Evidence. In addition to Complainant’s testimony, Complainant offered the following exhibits which were received into the evidentiary record without objection:
Exhibit Description
A Statement of Complainant
B Property Particulars
C Property Information on 1 Acre Lot Values
D Letter From Mayor of Browning, MO
E Newspaper Article
F Tax Sales in Linn County
G 2016 Property Tax Receipt

 

  1. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered the following exhibits and testimony of Tosha Wood, which were received into the evidentiary record without objection:
Exhibit Description
1 Agricultural Land Report
2 Land Table
3 CSR Agricultural Regulations
4 Map of Soils
5 Larger Map of Soils
6 Data for Exhibits 4 and 5
7 Agricultural Land Report for Neighboring Property
8 Agricultural Land Report for Neighboring Property
9 137.017 RSMo.
10 Recent Land Sale
11 Recent Land Sale
12 Recent Land Sale
13 Recent Land Sale
14 Subject Property Record Card (PRC)
15 Recent Sale PRC Card
16 Recent Sale PRC Card
17 Recent Sale PRC Card
18 Recent Sale PRC Card
19 Recent Sale PRC Card

 

  1. 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 to establish a TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2017.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement.  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.

Board Presumption and Complainant’s Burden of Proof

To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the TVM of the subject property on the subject tax day.  Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).  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).  TVM 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, TVM is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.  Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.

“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.”  Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).  “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.”  Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).

A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct.  Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895.  “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348.  Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.  Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.  Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702.  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).

There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC 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.”  Westwood Partnership, 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); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).  A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.”  See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980).

Weight to be Given Evidence

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining TVM and is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled.  The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide.  St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.  Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).  The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part.  Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

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.   See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).  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.   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. 1974).

“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.”  Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977).  “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof  Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869.  “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.

“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s [TVM].”  Id.  “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties.  Id. at 348.  “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.”  Id. (quotation omitted).  “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.”  Id.

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.

 

  1. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

  1. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

  1. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

  1. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

  1. 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.

Discussion

In this case, Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.  Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion.  Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702.  Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion.  Id.

As to the residential property, Complainant heavily relied upon tax sales in an attempt to support a lower TVM for the subject property.  Tax sales are not generally considered to be arms-length transactions.  Consequently, such were not persuasive to the Hearing Officer.  Complainant also relied on sales in Browning, Missouri by such city.  Complainant testified that Browning is attempting to maintain and increase its population.  According to Complainant, Browning even gives away some property in an attempt to maintain its population.  As with tax sales, these sales were not considered to be arms-length transaction by the Hearing Officer.  The seller, Browning, does not appear to be “typically motivated.’”

Regarding Complainant’s agricultural property, Complainant asserted that he believed a portion of such is grade VII property.  However, he did not testify how much of his property should be grade 7.  Upon cross examination and questioning by the Hearing Officer, it was determined that Complainant only utilizes approximately 2.1 acres of the 8.1 acres of agricultural land for agricultural purposes.  The remaining 6 acres are covered with timber.  Such property is not utilized in a manner to be assessed at its productive value.  Nevertheless, Respondent did not advocate for a change in the assessment.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, the Hearing Officer is persuaded that the BOE TVM should be affirmed.  Complainant’s evidence would require the Hearing Officer to participate in speculation, conjecture and surmise.  Such evidence did not induce belief in the Hearing Officer.  It was not persuasive.  Specific to the agricultural property, Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive, while Complainant’s was not.

ORDER

The TVM and 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

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Linn 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 November 21, 2017.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

John Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 21st day of November, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

linnassessor@hotmail.com

 

Gerald Ludwig, 17788 Highway MM, Browning, MO 64630

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator