State Tax Commission of Missouri
|IGOR & NATALYA TRAMS||)|
|v.||)||Appeal # 15-13702|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS CO., MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County is SET ASIDE. Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Nevertheless, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 is set at $6,650 residential ($35,000 TMV).
Complainant Igor Trams appeared pro se.
Complainant Natalya Trams did not appear.
Respondent appeared by attorney Steven Robson.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation. The St. Louis County Assessor set the TMV of the subject property, as residential property, at $40,000. The St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustained such valuation. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money of the subject property on January 1, 2015.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on February 4, 2016 at the St. Louis Administrative Building in Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 16K230732. It is further identified as 8254 Paramount, University City, MO. (Exhibit 1).
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a tract of land of 6,250 square feet improved by a bungalow style home with 850 square feet of gross living area. It has a stone exterior. Amenities include two bedrooms and one bathroom. (Ex. 1)
- Assessment. The Assessor set a true market value on the subject property at $40,000 residential.
- Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization sustained the true market value of the property.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered Exhibit A, which consisted of various MLS documents, without any adjustments for differences between the subject and the other properties. The Exhibit was received into the evidentiary record without objection. Complainant proposed a true market value of $30,000.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1, which consisted of an Appraisal Report of Mark Stuart. The appraiser opined a true market value for the subject property, as of January 1, 2015 of $35,000. Such exhibit was received into the record without objection.
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, including the application of any abatement. 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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants must present substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on January 1, 2015. Hermel, supra. 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.” 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).
Weight to be Given Evidence
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 is not bound by any specific method.
Owner’s Opinion of Value
Although an owner is competent to testify regarding the appropriate valuation of the owner’s property, “[w]here the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.” Carmel Energy at 783. 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).
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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; 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
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. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). 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. 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).
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. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981.
In the present appeal based upon overvaluation, Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Complainants’ exhibit did not provide any way for the true market value of the subject property to be determined. The Hearing Officer did not deem Complainant Igor Trams to be an expert. Thus, Complainants case left the Hearing Officer “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).
Conversely, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Respondent’s appraiser used the sales comparison approach to value the subject property. He utilized three comparable properties to which he made market based adjustments. Mr. Stuart opined a value of $35,000 true market value.
The true market valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for St. Louis County for the subject tax day and sustained by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 is set at $6,650 residential ($35,000 TMV).
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
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 March 16, 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on March 16, 2016 to the following Individuals of this Order