State Tax Commission of Missouri
DANIEL HOGAN & COLLEEN O’GORMAN,)
v.)Appeal Number 08-57000
BILL OVERSCHMIDT, ASSESSOR,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Hearing Officer finds the presumption of correct assessment not rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $27,220, agricultural assessed value of $3266.
Complainants failed to appear.
Respondent appeared by counsel Mark Vincent.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine (1) the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007; and (2) whether there was an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than 12% of true value in money, or at a ratio greater than the average agricultural assessment ratio for Franklin County.
Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $27,220 (assessed value of $3266, as agricultural property).Complainant proposed a value of $3000 (assessed value of $360).A hearing was conducted on October 20, 2008, at theFranklinCountyGovernmentCenter,Union,Missouri.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is located atWrights Lodge Road,St. Clair,Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 30-3-07.0-1-000-021.000.
3.Complainants failed to appear and present evidence to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, to be $3,000, as proposed in the Complaint for Review of Assessment, or that there was any discrimination.Commission Order, dated September 18, 2008 setting the evidentiary hearing for 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 20, 2008, stated – “If you do not appear at the hearing and no request for continuance is made, your appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”No request for continuance was filed.
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.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof 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.
The appeal is dismissed for failure of prosecution (12 CSR 30-3.050(3) (D)).The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization forFranklinCounty for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $3266.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.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, MO65102-0146, 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 Franklin 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.
SO ORDERED October 30, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”
<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:150pt;
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 30thday of October, 2008, to:Colleen O’Gorman, 138 Willow Creek, Union, MO 63084, Complainant; Mark Vincent, County Counselor, P.O. Box 439, Union, MO 63084, Attorney for Respondent; Bill Overschmidt, Assessor, 400 E. Locust, Suite 105A, Union, MO 63084; Debbie Door, Clerk, Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 201, Union, MO 63084; Linda Emmons, Collector; Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 103, Union, MO 63084.
 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).