State Tax Commission of Missouri
HARDAGE HOTELS, LLC,)
v.)Appeal Number 06-79089
LISA POPE, ASSESSOR,)
PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
The value determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.The correct value for the property on January 1, 2006, was $2,919,024(assessed value $934,087).
The subject property is a three acre tract improved with a 112 room extended stay hotel.The property was originally valued by the Assessor at $5,000,000.That value was affirmed by the Board of Equalization.Upon appeal, Complainant asserts a value of $1,290,000.Respondent asserts a value of $3,360,000.Both appraisers made significant errors in their appraisal reports.We find value to be $2,919,024.
A hearing was conducted on June 18, 2007, before Senior Hearing Officer Luann Johnson, at the Platte County Administration Building, Platte City, Missouri.Complainant appeared by its appraiser, Bernie Shaner, and by its attorney, Richard Dvorak.Respondent appeared by her appraiser, Brian Everly, and by counsel, John R. Shank.Pursuant to Tax Commission Order, both parties prefiled their appraisal reports and written direct testimony.
The issue raised on appeal is: What was the true value in money of Complainant’s property on January 1, 2006?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal for tax year 2006 is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
2.Subject Property.The subject property is an approximately three acre tract improved with a fifteen building, 76,860 square foot, extended stay motel.The property was built in 1986-1987 and is identified as parcel number 17-7.0-36-000-009-001-000, more commonly known as 9900 Prairie View Road, Kansas City, Platte County, Missouri.Ex. 1, pg. 1.The subject property has frontage along the west side of NW Prairie View Road and NW 100th Street and visibility from Interstate 29.Ex. D, Property Data, pg. 1.
The subject property contains 112 rooms; divided as follows:56 studio suites containing 450 square feet each; 28 double suites containing 564 square feet each; and 28 penthouse suites containing 776 square feet each.Three of the suites are handicap accessible.All suites contain a kitchen, living room and sleeping area.Studio and double suites are one-story while penthouse suites are two-stories.Studio suites are furnished with one double bed and double suites are furnished with two double beds.Penthouse suites have a king-sized bed, a queen-sized bed, a pull-out sofa bed, and two bathrooms.Ex. D, Property Data, pgs. 5-6.
The property is further improved with a heated pool and spa, a fitness center, a sports court, laundry facilities, and meeting facilities.Ex. D, Property Data, pgs. 6-7.
3.Deferred Maintenance. As of the tax day, the property needed exterior painting and the furnishings were older and scheduled to be replaced in 2007.Ex. D, Property Data, pg. 4.The subject property is in good overall condition.Ex. D, Property Data, pg. 8.
4.Age and Depreciation. The subject property has an estimated effective age of 15 years and an estimated economic life of 40 years.Ex. 1, pg. 10, Ex. D, Property Data, pg. 4.
5.Furniture Fixtures and Equipment have a depreciated value of $156,800. Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 17.
6.Management.The subject property performed at or above market levels until 2001.Tr. 44.“The property has experienced decreased occupancy rates over the past few years due to turnover in the sales department and management issues.The subject’s occupancy is anticipated to increase to near competitive set averages in the next few years due to the sales department and management issues being resolved”Ex. D, Market Analysis, pg. 9, Income Approach, pg. 3.
7.Franchise.The subject property carries a “Chase Suite Hotel” flag.Said franchise contains only 17 properties nationwide.Ex. D, Property Data, pg. 8.Said flag does not help the property.Tr.pg. 25.
8.No Functional Obsolescence.At hearing, Complainant’s appraiser argued that the decline in revenue was due to the “maze of buildings” and lack of elevators.Tr. P. 6-7, p. 26,p. 28.Respondent’s appraiser agreed that the subject had no elevators and was not as well designed as some similar properties, Tr. Pg. 37-38.But, Respondent’s appraiser also points out that the property was functioning at market level prior to 2001 and asserts that the events of September 11, 2001, dampened all hotel business.Respondent’s appraiser also asserts that the subject property’s flag does not aid the business.Tr. Pg. 44.
We find that the most probable cause of declining revenues were management and sales problems, as articulated by Complainant’s general manager and quoted in Complainant’s appraisal report.Ex. D, Market Analysis, pg. 9. We also find that “Competent management will play a pivotal role in boosting the subject’s current occupancy rates.The subject’s occupancy is anticipated to increase to near competitive set averages in the next few years due to the new furnishings to be purchased for the guest suites.”Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 3.Therefore, we find that Complainant’s appraiser’s assertion of functional obsolescence is contradicted by his own appraisal report.There is insufficient market evidence in the record to support a finding that the subject property is not capable of producing market income because of functional deficiencies.
9.Highest and Best Use. The highest and best use of the property is as improved.Ex. 1, pg. 7.
10.Occupancy. The subject property’s occupancy during 2005 was 47%.Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 3.Complainant’s appraiser estimates the appropriate occupancy rate for the subject property to be 60%.Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 3.The average occupancy for the subject market was 61.42%.Respondent’s appraiser used a 61.6% occupancy rate based upon Smith Travel Research April 2005 for the subject area. Ex. 1, pg. 14.The correct occupancy rate is the market occupancy rate of 61.4%.
11.Rental Rates. Average daily room rates (ADR) for limited service properties in the subject neighborhood range from $55 to $199. The subject property quotes room rates at $89 to $109 for studio suites; $109-129 for double suites and $149 for penthouse suites.The subject’s average daily rate was $82.46 for 2005, which is slightly above the average daily rate for the competitive set.This is due to the subject property’s penthouse suites.The rates for these suites are near the upper end of the range.“The subject’s current quotes rates are reasonable relative to its competitive stature among direct competitors in its submarket”.Ex. D, Market Analysis, pg. 9, Income Approach, pg. 3.
In spite of the fact that the subject property had an actual ADR of $82.46 in 2005, Complainant’s appraiser reduced ADR to $75 arguing that a reduction was necessary to increase occupancy to 60%.Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 3.Respondent’s appraiser chose an ADR of $85, which represented a 3% increase over the ADR in 2005.We find ADR of $82.46, based upon the actual earning potential of the subject property, is appropriate.
12.Income Approach Most Reliable. The income approach, when done correctly, is the most reliable way to value the subject property. The sales comparison approach is not a reliable mechanism for valuing properties which have business value and personal property components because of the inability to adjust the comparable sales for these variances. Because of the age of the improvements, the cost approach is not a reliable indicator of the value of the subject property.
13.Total Annual Stabilized Revenue. The correct room revenue of the property is $2,069,722 ($82.46 x .614 x 112 x 365).Further, an addition of 2% of room income as other income is appropriate, say $41,394 ($2,069,722 x .02 = $41,394).The potential gross income for the subject property for tax year 2006 is $2,111,116.($2,069,722 + $41,394 = $2,111,116).
14.Total Annual Department Expenses. The correct department expenses for the property are $641,894 as proposed by Respondent.The difference between Complainant’s and Respondent’s departmental expenses is merely Respondent’s decision to increase expenses 3% over actual 2005 expenses.Normally, we would find that the addition of 3% over actual 2005 expenses is not appropriate for a property valuation as of January 1, 2006.However, we are aware that expenses increase as occupancy increases and, therefore, prefer to accept Respondent’s higher expense numbers rather than Complainant’s actual expense numbers.
15.Total Annual Undistributed Expenses.The correct undistributed expenses for the property are $726,931 as proposed by Respondent.The difference between Complainant’s and Respondent’s undistributed expenses is merely Respondent’s decision to increase expense 3% over actual 2005 expenses.Normally we would find that the addition of 3% over actual 2005 expenses is not appropriate for a property valuation as of January 1, 2006.However, we are aware that expenses increase as occupancy increases and, therefore, prefer to accept Respondent’s higher expense numbers rather than Complainant’s actual expense numbers.
16.Total Annual Fixed Charges.These expenses properly include management fees, franchise fees, and reserves for replacing structural components and reserves for replacing furniture, fixtures and equipment. The stabilized expenses properly do not include a sum for real property taxes.Respondent’s appraiser’s inclusion of real estate taxes within the expenses tends to understate the value of the property because his capitalization rate includes a percentage for real estate taxes.Further, Respondent’s appraiser failed to include a reserve for replacement.However, Complainant’s estimate of fixed expenses does not account for market occupancy.Therefore, we set fixed charges based upon our calculation of potential gross income of $2,111,116, as follows:
Management Fee – 4% of $2,111,116
Marketing Fee – 2.5% of $2,111,116
Franchise Fee – 5% of $2,111,116
Reserve for Replacement – structure – 4%
Reserve for Replacement – FF&E – 4%
17.Net Operating Income. The correct net operating income is $293,627. ($2,111,116 – 641,894 – $726,931 – $448,664 = $293,627).
18.Capitalization Rate.Complainant presented evidence of sales with overall rates of 12.88%, 8.46%, 8.34% and 8.50%.Said sales occurred in 1997 and 1998.Ex. D, Income Approach, pg 9.Perhaps to bolster his lack of recent sales data, Complainant’s appraiser referred to surveys showing rates from 8.34% to 13%.Complainant’s appraiser determined that the appropriate cap rate was 12% to which he added 2.82% as the effective tax rate.
Respondent presented sales from 2003 and 2005 with overall rates of 9.56%, 9.71%, 9.99% and 10.67%. Ex. 1, pg. 16. Respondent selected a capitalization rate of 10%.Neither appraiser sought to remove the tax rate from the market capitalization rates.Respondent’s appraiser opined that attempting to remove the tax rate from the sales would be virtually impossible.Tr. 38.
We find Respondent’s use of recent sales to determine a capitalization rate to be more accurate that Complainant’s use of older sales and surveys.We also find that an effective tax can not be added to a capitalization rate which already includes a tax rate inasmuch as it would overstate the appropriate capitalization rate.Therefore we find that the appropriate capitalization rate for the subject property is 10% based upon the two sales within Platte County (Best Western Platte City and Comfort Inn KCI) which indicate capitalization rates of 9.71% and 9.99%.
19.Value Before Deduction of Intangible or Personal Property Values. The correct value for the subject property, before the deduction of any intangible business values or value attributable to personal property, is $2,936,270($293,627/.10 = $2,936,270).
20.No Additional Business Value Deduction. Complainant’s expenses include a deduction for management fees and a deduction for franchise fees. No additional business value remains to be deducted from the value of the real property. Tr. 54 – 56.
21.No Additional Return of Personal Property Required. Complainant’s expenses include a deduction for the periodic replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment. No additional return of personal property is required to be deducted from the value of the real property.
22.Return on Personal Property. Complainant is entitled to a return on personal property to recognize the contributory affect of personal property on the income producing capacity of the subject property. However, the contributory affect of the personal property on the income stream is not the depreciated value of that personal property. Only the income generated by the personal property can be deducted from the income stream. Return on personal property is calculated by multiplying the value of the personal property by a reasonable rate of return.
Complainant’s appraiser estimated the depreciated value of the FF&E to be $156,800 and proposed an 11% rate of return, or $17,246.Ex. D, Income Approach, pg. 15.We find this rate of return to be reasonable and adopt same.
23.True Value in Money of Real Property. The true value in money of the real property is hereby set at $2,919,024 ($2,936,270- $17, 246 = $2,919,024).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Article X, Section 14, Missouri Constitution of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.460(2), RSMo.
True Value in Money
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 purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joseph 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). It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). Valuation is expressed in terms of cash or its equivalent.
Substantial and Persuasive Evidence
In order to prevail, Complainant must present substantial and persuasive evidence that the true value in money for this property on January 1, 2006, was $1,290,000. Substantial evidence is evidence favoring facts which are such that reasonable men may differ as to whether it establishes them, and from which the Commission can reasonably decide an appeal on the factual issues. Cupples-Hesse Corporation 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. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).
No Presumption in Favor of Respondent
There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness of assessments made by the Board of Equalization. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978). However, there is no such presumption in favor of the Assessor. Section 138.431.1, RSMo. When Respondent advocates a value different from that set by the Board of Equalization, he or she is under the same burden as Complainant to present substantial and persuasive evidence in favor of his or her value.
A value assessment of the fee simple of real estate includes every interest or estate therein. Dorman v. Minnich, 336 S.W.2d 500, 505 (Mo. banc 1960).
The rules governing expert testimony are well settled. 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 accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Mo. banc 1930).
In Missouri, intangible personal property is not subject to property taxation. Intangible property has no physical substance but, rather, is a right of action such as easements, good will or trade secrets and which may be evidenced by documents which have no intrinsic value, such as stocks, bonds, notes, judgments or franchises. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1976. John Hancock, supra, p. 408.
Some properties have both a “market value” and a “going concern value.”The later is value enhanced by, among other things, the intangible value of an operating business enterprise.
“Going concern” has both a tangible and intangible component. That portion of the going concern value which is the result of assemblage is tangible and taxable; while the portion of going concern value which is attributable to a saleable business asset based upon reputation rather than physical assets is intangible and not taxable. Boise Cascade Corporation v. Department of Revenue, 12 Or. Tax 263 (1991); John Hancock, supra, p. 408.
Similar to assemblage value, the concept that one buying the real estate necessarily gets the business is called “transmissible value.” Courts have long held that transmissible value constitutes taxable real estate, even when intertwined with a business. Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Hew Hampton, 136 A. 2d 591 (N.H. 1957); John Hancock, supra, p. 408.
As articulated in State ex rel. N/S Associates v. Board of Review of the Village of Greendale, 473 N.W.2d 554 (Wisc. App. 1991), the test for isolating intangible business value is as simple as asking whether the disputed value is appended to the property and, thus transferrable with the property or is it independent of the property so that it either stays with the seller or dissipates upon sale. John Hancock, supra, p. 408.
The presence of intangibles is determined using the following test:
(1)The intangible asset must be identifiable, i.e., legally recognized;
(2)It must be capable of private ownership;
(3)It must be marketable, i.e., capable of being financed and/or sold separate and apart from the tangible property; and
(4)Practically, it must possess value, i.e., have the potential to earn income, or its existence is of no consequence.
Simon Property Group v. Boley, 51 Proceedings and Decisions of the State Tax Commission, 1996, p. 483.
Competent management is not a basis for reducing property value under an “intangible” theory. Any correct market value appraisal must presuppose competent management. The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th Edition, Appraisal Institute, 1992, p. 439. It is only extraordinary management, evidenced by extremely high rents, occupancy, and sales volume that suggests value added because of an intangible. Simon, supra, p. 495. The burden to prove the existence of an intangible asset lies with the party claiming that existence.
STC Approved Hotel Valuation Guidelines
Valuing Hotel or Motel Property
In the real estate appraisal industry, the market value of a hotel is considered to consist of four components (1) value of the land; (2) value of the improvements; (3) value of the business or going concern and franchise affiliation; and (4) value of the furniture, fixtures and equipment (i.e. personal property). John Hancock Mutual Life v. Stanton, 51 STC Proceedings and Decisions, 1996, p. 394. Lesser and Rubin, Understanding the Unique Aspects of Hotel Property Tax Valuation, The Appraisal Journal, January, 1993, p. 17. For appraisal purposes, fixtures such as bathtubs and sinks are valued as part of the real property. Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, p. 76.
Hotels and motels are almost always valued by an income capitalization approach that takes the property’s stabilized net income and capitalizes it into an estimate of market value. The stabilized net income is intended to reflect the anticipated operating results of the hotel over its remaining economic life, given any or all applicable stages of buildup, plateau, and decline in the life cycle. Therefore such stabilized net income excludes from consideration any abnormal relation of supply and demand and any transitory or nonrecurring conditions that may result in unusual revenues or expenses of the property. The process of deriving the stabilized net income for a lodging facility requires the appraiser to look into the future and estimate operating revenues and expenses. This is accomplished by forecasting or predicting trends in historical performance based on the hotel’s current position in an economic life cycle. Most types of real estate exhibit a pattern or life cycle in their ability to generate income over a period of time. Usually a property’s net income will start low and rise quickly, reaching a plateau before slowly declining. By determining a hotel’s position in its life cycle the appraiser is able to forecast future income based on historical operating results.
New hotels show a normal upward growth in occupancy which results in a stabilized occupancy level, income and expense, higher than actually demonstrated by historical performance.
An older hotel which shows declining performance over several years is in the downward phase of its life cycle and a stabilized occupancy level, income and expense, somewhat lower than actually demonstrated by historical performance would be appropriate.
Finally a hotel which shows an historical operating performance which oscillates up and down is considered to be at the peak or plateau portion of its life cycle. With hotels which are in such a plateau, the historic net income does not significantly understate what can be considered a stabilized level of income. In hotels with oscillating income, the stabilized income will fall into a range between the highest income reported and the lowest income reported. These divergences cannot be considered unacceptable, particularly over a period of time where the smoothing impact of averaging tends to minimize the differences. Rushmore and Rubin, The Valuation of Hotels and Motels for Assessment Purposes, The Appraisal Journal, April 1984, p. 275-277. Crown Center Hotel Complex, Inc. v. Robert Boley, 49 Proceedings and Decisions, State Tax Commission, 423-435-436.
Allowable operating expenses are ordinary and typical expenses that are necessary to keep the property functional and rented competitively with other properties in the area but do not include interest and principal payments that amortize a mortgage loan, depreciation, income tax, capital improvements, owner’s business expenses, or property taxes. Property taxes are treated as part of the capitalization rate. Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, p. 256-259. Property Assessment Valuation, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1977, p. 215-221. Diamond Savings Association v. A. Roy Pearson, State Tax Commission Appeal No. 92-41024. John Hancock Mutual Life v. Stanton, 51 STC Proceedings and Decisions, 1996, p. 394.
Return on Personal Property
The return on personal property to be deducted from a hotel’s income and expense statements can be calculated by (1) using the market value of the personal property as shown on the assessment rolls; (2) actual appraisal of the personal property; or (3) using the depreciated book value of the personal property. Because of the rapidity with which short-lived items are depreciated, the depreciated book value can be considered a “floor” on the value of the personal property. Its use in the return on personalty calculation thus results in the most conservative (i.e., lowest) estimate possible for a return on personal property, given any benefit of the doubt to the value of the hotel’s real estate component. Chattel mortgages for hotel furniture, fixtures and equipment are generally not available in the marketplace. Therefore, interest rates on hotel mortgages establish a minimum required rate of return on personalty. Return on personalty is determined by adding the capitalization rate for the real property to the tax load or effective tax rate per $100 of the personal property and multiplying same by the assessed value of the personal property. In attempting to segregate personal property from real estate, the primary consideration in valuing the personal property is its actual contributory value, not its hypothetical replacement cost new less depreciation. Lesser and Rubin, Understanding the Unique Aspects of Hotel Property Tax Valuation, The Appraisal Journal, January 1993, P. 33, Crown Center, supra, p. 439, John Hancock, supra, p. 396.
Return of Personal Property
Periodic replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment is essential to maintain the quality, image, and income potential of a lodging facility. An appraisal should reflect these expenses in the form of an appropriate reserve for replacement. Industry experience indicates that a reserve for replacement of 3% to 5% of total revenue generally is sufficient to provide for timely replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment. The deduction of a reserve for replacement from the stabilized statement of income and expense can therefore be used to account for the return of personal property. Lesser and Rubin, Understanding the Unique Aspects of Hotel Property Tax Valuation, The Appraisal Journal. January, 1993, p. 21, 22. Crown Center, supra, p. 440.
Hotel Management and Business Value
Management companies generally offer their brand names, corporate identities, and reservation systems solely in conjunction with their management expertise. The process of isolating the value of a hotel’s business is based on the premise that by employing a professional management agent to handle the day-to-day operation of the property, an owner maintains only a passive interest, while income attributed to the business has been taken by the managing agent in the form of a management fee. Therefore, deduction of a management fee from the stabilized net income removes a portion of the business component from the stabilized income stream. Hotel management contracts are routinely structured with fees payable in two parts. The first part is the base management fee. This portion of the fee is usually based on a percentage of gross revenue and as such may be considered payment to the management company for the portion of its services that include building the hotel’s gross revenues. The second part of a typical management fee is called the incentive management fee and is usually based on a percentage of some level of net income. As such, this portion of the fee may be deemed payment to the management company for the portion of its services that include monitoring the hotel’s expenses and implementing the required control systems. Additionally, lodging facilities operated with a franchise affiliation provided by a third party are subject to the payment of franchise fees. Deducting the franchise fees from the stabilized net income removes the remaining business component from the income stream. Lesser and Rubin, Understanding the Unique Aspects of Hotel Property Tax Valuation, The Appraisal Journal, April 1984, p. 280-291; Crown Center, supra at p. 438. John Hancock, supra at p. 397. The business value component of a hotel is accounted for through the franchise fee and the management fee. If these two items are calculated as expense items, no additional calculation is necessary to remove their impact from net operating income. John Hancock, supra. p. 397. Going concern value can be treated in one of two ways: The appraisers can leave the management and franchise fees in the expenses calculations, in which case no further calculation is necessary. Or, alternatively, the may remove those fees from the expenses and treat them separately. John Hancock supra p. 405. Leaving management and franchise fees in the expense calculations and then making further adjustments for business value results in stating business value twice and understating the value of the real property.
Both appraisers made significant mistakes in their appraisal reports.Respondent’s appraiser deducted $776,171 from his value indication as a deduction for personal property.The value of the personal property is not a deduction.The only appropriate deduction is the contribution of the personal property to the income stream.By deducting the entire value of the personal property, Respondent’s appraiser understated the value of the real property.
Respondent’s appraiser also failed to provide a reserve for replacement deduction.
Complainant’s appraiser had even greater problems.Not only did he deduct for the depreciated value of the business personal property, but he also deducted for a return on and a return of the property; effectively more than doubling the appropriate deduction.He then deducted for business value through his management fees and franchise fees and then deducted an additional $618,200 as a business value, more than tripling the appropriate deduction.He also double dipped in his capitalization rate when he added an effective tax rate to a capitalization rate which already had a tax rate included.
Finally, Complainant’s appraiser hung his whole argument that the property was poorly performing upon his assertion that the functional obsolescence within the property was such a drain on the property that it would never be able to operate up to market standards.Tr. 27.Not only does this position contradict the position stated by Complainant’s general manager and quoted in Complainant’s appraisal report, but it also ignores recent history which demonstrates that despite any perceived flaws, the property is more than capable of performing up to market standards.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2006, as determined by the Assessor and affirmed by the Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE. The Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to place a new value of $2,919,024(assessed value $934,087) on the books for tax year 2006.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.
If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Platte 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. If any protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.
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 September 14, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 14thday of September, 2007, to:Richard Dvorak, 7111 West 98th Terrace, Suite 140, Overland Park, KS 66212, Attorney for Complainant; John Shank, 9800 N.W. Polo, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64153, Attorney for Respondent; Lisa Pope, Assessor; 415 Third Street, P.O. Box 20, Platte City, MO 64079; Sandra Krohne, Clerk, 415 Third, P.O. Box 30, Platte City, MO 64079; Donna Nash, Collector; 409 Third, P.O. Box 40, Platte City, MO 64079.