State Tax Commission of Missouri
|GOLDEN TRIANGLE ENGERY LLC , )|
|v. )||Appeal No. 12-60500|
|LADONNA JONES, ASSESSOR, )|
|HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI, )|
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On February 11, 2014, Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan entered her Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the 2012 value made by the Assessor and sustained by the Holt County Board of Equalization. Respondent filed its Application for Review of the Decision. Complainant filed her Brief in Opposition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Upon 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. The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request. The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision. The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.[i]
Complainant’s Claims of Error
Complainant puts forth the following alleged errors in the Decision.
- The Hearing Officer erred in not excluding Respondent’s appraiser’s evidence on the basis that Respondent’s appraiser was acting as a lawyer rather than an appraiser in contravention to 12 CSR 30-3.010.3(3) and Supreme Court Rule 4-3.7.
- The Hearing Officer erred in failing to admit Exhibits I and J supporting Complainant’s motion to exclude and strike Mr. Muenks testimony. And further erred in failing to accept Exhibit L, a compendium of monthly per bushel corn prices paid by Complainant during the period of January, 2009 through September, 2013.
- The Hearing Officer erred in confining her valuation conclusion to only the cost approach. “The Hearing Officer . . . should not be allowed to replace the expert witness as an arbiter of market value . . .”
- The Hearing Officer’s value did not represent Market Value inasmuch as it did not rely upon all three approaches to value.
Discussion and Rulings
The Commission will address each of the points raised by Complainant.
Advocate vs. Witness
The evidence at hearing was that Respondent’s witness helped draft interrogatories to the taxpayer in conjunction with preparing his appraisal report. Complainant argues that this violates Supreme Court Rule 4-3.7 and 12 CSR 30-3.020.3(3) and, therefore, Respondent’s appraisal report and witness testimony should be excluded.
Supreme Court Rule 4-3.7 asserts that a lawyer should not be an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. The basis for this rule is that to allow a lawyer to be a witness as well as an advocate might prejudice the opposing party or confuse the tribunal. With less discussion, our rule suggests that a lawyer should avoid being a witness for his client and, if he is a witness, should leave the prosecution of the case to a different lawyer.
Respondent’s witness was both a lawyer and an expert witness. Respondent was further represented by the Prosecuting Attorney for the county. Respondent’s witnesses assisting county prosecuting attorneys in preparing relevant interrogatories is a common occurrence, even when the appraiser is not an attorney, inasmuch as an appraisal expert frequently possesses a better understanding of facts necessary to adequately appraise property. The same holds true for appraisers assisting taxpayer attorneys. Neither situation confuses the tribunal nor prejudices the other party. Complainant cannot – and does not – argue that it was confused by the role Respondent’s appraiser played in the hearings.
The Commission has reviewed the transcript and finds that Respondent’s witness was clearly acting as an appraiser, not an attorney, in the evidentiary hearing. And, while the hearing officer did not rule on Complainant’s objection, that failure created no objectionable error.
A review of the transcript reveals that Exhibit I and J were never offered into evidence. Nonetheless, Complainant’s position that Mr. Muenks acted as both a lawyer and an appraiser was thoroughly addressed at hearing so, even if the exhibits had been offered, it would not have changed the Hearing Officer’s decision or our decision.
There was no Exhibit L. From the description of this exhibit in Complainant’s Application for Review, it is probably what was referred to as Exhibit K at hearing. Again, it does not appear that this exhibit was offered into evidence. But, again, it appears that Complainant thoroughly cross-examined Respondent’s witness on the varying cost of corn between 2009 and 2013 and the basis for Mr. Muenks’ stabilized numbers.[ii] The Hearing Officer had that information available to her but ultimately determined that the income approach was not substantial and persuasive given the lack of stability of income.
Hearing Officer Determining Value
Contrary to Complainant’s assertion, the Hearing Officer did not adopt the cost approach to value. She found that the respective cost approaches supported the Board of Equalization value. The Board value was $22,000,000 for 2012. Complainant’s cost approach indicated a value of $21,870,000. Respondent’s cost approach indicated a value of $24,350,000. The Hearing Officer affirmed the Board value.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely the Hearing Officer’s function to determine value. Under Section 138.431.5 RSMo. the Hearing Officer issues her order “ . . .affirming, modifying, or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious . . .”. This is a delegation of the authority given to the State Tax Commission in Section 138.380(1) RSMo. and Missouri Constitution Article X, Section 14. Nothing in any of these laws says that the Hearing Officer must defer to an appraiser. Numerous cases, cited in the Hearing Officer’s decision and Complainant’s Application for Review, support this position and it is not necessary to repeat them here.
Hearing Officer’s Exclusion of Income and Sales Comparison Approaches
Finally, Complainant argues that the Hearing Officer could not accurately determine value without factoring in the values presented under the sales comparison approach and the income approach. The Hearing Officer fully discussed the problems with the sales and income approaches in her decision, including the limited number of sales and the lack of a stabilized income. It is obvious that she looked at the evidence and gave it as much weight and credit as she deemed it entitled to, accepting that which she felt was credible and rejecting those parts which she felt did not reliably indicate value.
The Commission, upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, affirms the decision of the Hearing Officer. The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, 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, 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 Holt 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 15th day of July, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy B. Holman, Commissioner
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 17th day of July, 2014, to: Wayne A. Tenenbaum, 918 W. Burning Tree Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64145, Attorney for Complainant; LaDonna Jones, Holt County Assessor, P.O. Box 366, Oregon, Missouri 64473, Respondent; Robert Shepherd, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 467, Oregon, Missouri 64473, Attorney for Respondent; Kathy Kunkel, Holt County Clerk, P.O. Box 437, Oregon, Missouri 64473; and Billy Paul Sharp, Holt County Collector, Holt County Courthouse, Oregon, Missouri 64473.
[i] 138.432. RSMo
[ii] Tr. P. 125-127
State Tax Commission of Missouri
GOLDEN TRIANGLE ENERGY LLC,)
v. ) Appeal Number 11-60500 & 12-60500
LADONNA JONES, ASSESSOR,)
HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
For 2011, the decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2011 is $9,628,800, commercial assessed value of $3,081,220.
For 2012, the decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SUSTAINED.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2012 is $22,000,000, commercial assessed value of $7,040,000.
Complainant appeared by counsel, Wayne Tennebaum.
Respondent appeared by counsel, Robert R. Shepherd.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2012.
In appeal 11-60500, Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization, which sustained the Assessor’s original valuation of the alcohol distillation property at $10,600,000 or a commercial assessed value of $3,392,000.
In appeal 12-60500, Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization, which sustained the Assessor’s original valuation of the entire property of $22,000,000, a commercial assessed value of $7,040,000.
A hearing was conducted on January 22, 2014, at the Holt County Courthouse, Oregon, Missouri.
The following exhibits were accepted into evidence on behalf of Complainant:
Written Direct Testimony
Appraisal Report of Kenneth Voss
The following exhibits were accepted on behalf of Respondent:
Written Direct Testimony of Rick Muenks
Appraisal Report of Rick J. Muenks
Property Record Card 19-6-23-00-00-02
Property Record Card 07-9-29-00-00-01
Property Record Card 16-3-07-00-00-06
Property Record Card 07-6-13-00-00-05
Property Record Card 11-3-07-00-00-00
Golden Triangle Newsletter
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property in appeal 11-60500 (alcohol distillation facility) was previously described by the State Tax Commission as a one acre tract improved with a modular heavy steel structure, built in 2008 for $17,000,000, used for distilling high grade alcohol.The structure consists of eight modules.Modules 1 through 4 are each 13 feet by 69 feet with a height of 14 feet.They are stacked horizontally to create a four-level structure.Modules 5 and 6 are each 13 feet by 55 feet in length and 14 feet wide.These modules have been place vertically on the east side of modules 1 through 4.Module 8 is placed vertically on the west side of modules 1 through 4.It is 13 feet by 67 feet.Module 7 is similar to module 8 except it is only 9 feet wide and is a steel stairway that provides access to the different levels.The structure contains a total of 6,045 square feet on the main level and 12,300 square feet on the upper levels.The exterior and roof are open.The structure sits on a poured concrete floor.Steel grates make up the floors for the upper levels.In addition the structure includes three smoke stacks.These smoke stacks are considered part of the real estate.The structure has plumbing and electrical service but no heat.This property is identified as parcel number 07-6-13-00-00-03.001.
The subject property includes a specialized industrial alcohol distillation system.This structure includes various tanks, heat transfer equipment and four tall rectifier towers.Other improvements include a 35,000 gallon storage tank.
The subject improvements were built as an add on to a previously existing ethanol plant.The alcohol plant relies upon the ethanol plant for various different tanks, buildings, rail lines and utility services as well as its supply of ethanol.It is not a stand-alone plant.However, the ethanol plant was subject to a tax abatement in 2011 and it not under appeal for that tax year.
3.The State Tax Commission previously described the ethanol plant as being constructed in 2001 and capable of producing 19,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year.The alcohol plant was constructed in 2008 and is capable of producing 14,400,000 gallons of alcohol per year.Ethanol (fuel grade alcohol) is used to produce industrial grade alcohol.The high grade alcohol market is a national market with a very limited number of plants that are capable of producing it.The purpose of the alcohol plant is to add flexibility and the capacity to produce diverse products depending upon market demand.The industrial alcohol market has been more stable than the highly volatile fuel ethanol industry. Industrial alcohol (high grade alcohol) demand is driven by the needs of commercial users in various industries.Uses for industrial grade alcohol can include solvents and cleaning purposes and is considered an important product for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, food, cosmetics and many other products.Additionally, the alcohol manufactured at the subject can be used for beverage purposes and as an ingredient in consumer products such as antifreeze.
Two by-products of alcohol distillation are wet and dried distiller’s grain.These products are used to supplement livestock feed.The market for these products is large in the Midwest and other areas with livestock ranching.The market for these products is considered stable and it is believed that the subject property can achieve market rates for these by-products of ethanol and industrial alcohol production.
Another by-product of ethanol production is corn syrup.The corn syrup produced at ethanol facilities is primarily used as a livestock feed supplement.Typically, corn syrup is sprayed on livestock feed to make it more palatable.The market for this product is large and relatively stable.
Both parties presented the testimony of a general certified appraiser and appraisal evidence in each appeal.Both appraisers developed the cost approach for the 2011 appeal; Respondent’s appraisal also developed the income approach for 2011.For 2012, the appraisers developed all three approaches to value.
Both appraisers developed the sales approach for Appeal 12-60500.The resulting indications of value ranged from $15,600,000 to $23,300,000.The sales approach develops an opinion of value by comparing similar property that sold during a relevant period of time with the subject property. The appraiser determines appropriate units of comparison and makes adjustments to the sales prices of the comparable properties.
Both appraisers reviewed sales of ethanol plants. There are no plants similar to the subject in comparison to the gallons of capacity and with the alcohol distillation addition.The ethanol plants used as comparable properties were located throughout the mid-West.One plant was located in Missouri.Most of the plants were sold after financial difficulties; some of the sales were part of bankruptcy proceedings. An appraiser may use sales from foreclosures if the sale is investigated and further, foreclosure sales may be the actual market reviewed by the appraiser.
Both calculated a sale price per gallon from the sales comparables.The range of sale price per gallon was $0.38 to $1.82; the Complainant’s appraiser used $0.80 and the Respondent’s appraiser used $1.35 per gallon.After applying the calculated sale price per gallon, the range of value was $15,600,000 to $23,300,000.
Both appraisers developed the cost approach for appeals 11-60500 and 12-60500.The State Tax Commission found the value of the subject property in Appeal 11-60500 to be $10,600,000 in tax years 2009 and 2010.
Respondent’s appraiser concluded a valuation of $12,350,000 for January 1, 2011.In his approach, he used the actual cost to construct of $17,700,000.In the prior appeal, he calculated and applied depreciation to reach an indicator of value of $15,500,000.The appraiser explained that for the 2011 appraisal, he applied the same depreciation rate for another year for his determination of value of $12,350,000.
Complainant’s appraiser used Marshall and Swift and historical cost.He removed transportation costs from the original cost to establish a replacement cost new of $16,039,538.His physical, functional and economic obsolescence factors developed for 2011 and 2012 are appropriate.Using a cost of $16,039,538, the resulting value is $8,725,509, however, if using the original cost, including transportation, the resulting value is $9,628,800.
The appraisers cost approaches were similar for 2012.An additional analysis for the land was set forth in their appraisals.Their land values ranged from $4000 to $4,450.The Respondent was more persuasive in his familiarity with land in the area although the price per acre does not have a large impact on the conclusion of value under this approach.The replacement cost new as calculated by appraisers ranged from $47,260,409 by the Complainant’s appraiser and $49,357,777 by the Respondent’s appraiser.Depreciation calculated by the appraisers ranged from $25,424,191 to $25,761,083.The range of indication of value was $21,870,000 by the Complainant’s appraiser and $24,350,000 by the Respondent’s appraiser.
Subject property has had a wide variance in income.The facility might be a high risk investment as evidenced by the comparables sales.The subject property, after adding the high grade alcohol, may be able to stabilize their income.However, the subject property’s income was approximately $2,000,000 in 2011 and $5,000,000 in 2012.The variance in corn prices still impacts the net operating income of the property.The risk is also evidenced by the capitalization rates used by the appraisers.Any variance in the income used in this approach and differences in the capitalization rate, impacts the resulting indicator of values under the income approach.For example, the Respondent’s appraiser used a capitalization rate of 15% and applied it to a range of incomes which provided indicators of values ranging from $13.5 million to $33 million.Complainant’s appraiser used a higher cap rate to conclude an indication of value of $19,000,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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.
Official and Judicial Notice
Agencies shall take official notice of all matters of which the courts take judicial notice.
Courts will take judicial notice of their own records in the same cases.In addition, courts may take judicial notice of records in earlier cases when justice requires or when it is necessary for a full understanding of the instant appeal. Courts may take judicial notice of their own records in prior proceedings involving the same parties and basically the same facts.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.
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 an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer, or respondent when advocating a value different than that determined by the Board, 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.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but 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.
Trier of Fact
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 he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part.
Opinion Testimony by Experts
An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion.The state tax commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach.
The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The hearing officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and may accept it in part or reject it in part.
If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.
The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainant 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, 2011 and January 1, 2012.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.”
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.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.
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law.
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.It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.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.
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.
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.
In Appeal 11-60500, the subject property is the alcohol distillation portion of the plant as the ethanol processing property was subject to a tax abatement.In Appeal 12-60500, the subject property is the entire plant.
The property is unique in that there are limited number of ethanol processing plants.There are only six such plants in Missouri.The subject property is the only plant with an alcohol distillation component.
State Tax Commission found the value of the subject property in Appeal 11-60500 to be $10,600,000 in tax years 2009 and 2010.The appraisers developed the cost approach for the alcohol distillation plant for a value indication for January 1, 2011.The Respondent’s appraiser also developed an income approach.Respondent’s appraiser concluded a valuation of $12,350,000.The Complainant’s appraiser, using a cost of $16,039,538, determined a value of $8,725,509, however, if using the original cost, including transportation, the resulting value is $9,628,800.A valuation of $9,628,800 is appropriate after review of the appraiser’s report and the prior decision of the State Tax Commission.
In Appeal 12-60500, the entire property was subject to the appeal and the appraiser developed all three approaches to value.Given the limited number of sales of ethanol plants, the financial issues that were tied to the sales and the lack of comparability, the sales approach provides a reference and check for the Board of Equalization decision but does not provide substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness. Given the lack of stability in income making it difficult to estimate or stabilize an income to use in the approach and the degree of risk involved, along with the range of values opined by the appraisers (Respondent’s appraiser valuation ranged from $13.5 million to $33 million under the direct capitalization and Complainant’s appraiser opined a value of $19,000,000), the approach fails to provide substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct valuation.
The cost approach may provide the most reliable indicator of value given that the subject property is unique and specialized property.There are only six ethanol plants in Missouri and the subject is the only high grade alcohol production facility.Additionally there is a lack of historical income and lack of comparable sales, to make the other approaches more reliable.The range of indication of value by the appraisers was $21,870,000 by the Complainant’s appraiser and $24,350,000 by the Respondent’s appraiser.The experts’ opinions appear to support the valuation reached by the County Board of Equalization.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Holt County for the 2011 is SET ASIDE.
The clerk is hereby ordered to place a new assessed value of $3,081,220 (market value $9,628,800) on the subject property for tax year 2011.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Holt County for the 2012 is SUSTAINED.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing date shown in the Certificate of Service.The application shall contain specific 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. 
The Collector of Holt County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a 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 February 11, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
 State ex rel. Horton v. Bourke, 129 S.W.2d 866, 869 (1939); Barth v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Company, 44 S.W. 788, 781 (1898).
 Burton v. Moulder, 245 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Mo. 1952); Knorp v. Thompson, 175 S.W.2d 889, 894 (1943); Bushman v. Barlow, 15 S.W.2d 329, 332 (Mo. banc 1929)
 State ex rel St. Louis Public Service Company v. Public Service Commission, 291 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. banc 1956).
 In re Murphy, 732 S.W.2d 895, 902 (Mo. banc 1987); State v. Gilmore, 681 S.W.2d 934, 940 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Keeble, 399 S.W.2d 118, 122 (Mo. 1966).
 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).
 Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
 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).
 St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).
 Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W.2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).
 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).
 Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
 See, 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); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).
 St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993).
 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.
 See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra;Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).
 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. Div. 2 1974).