James & Karen Strahan v. Chuck Pennel, Assessor Taney County

December 8th, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

JAMES & KAREN STRAHAN, ) Appeal No. 15-89543 thru 15-89545
JAMES STRAHAN, )   15-89546 thru 15-89549
                     Complainants, )    
v. )    
  )    
CHUCK PENNEL, ASSESSOR, )    
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,

Respondent

)    

 

 

 

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

On December 8, 2015, Senior Hearing Officer John Treu, entered his Decision and Order (Decision) sustaining the Board of Equalization and Assessor’s values for the applicable tax years Such Decision sets forth the fact finding and legal determination of the Hearing Officer.

Complainants timely filed their Application for Review of the Decision. Respondent did not file a response.

 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.

 

 

DECISION

Complainants’ Claim of Error

The Hearing Officer erred in holding that Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive as to an assessment procedural process of the County Assessor which resulted in unlawful, unfair and arbitrary assessments and therefore discriminatory or lacking uniformity.

 

Discussion and Rulings

            Neither the Hearing Officer nor the State Tax Commission is obligated to adopt or believe the opinions of a property owner.  The Hearing Officer and the Commission, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of any witness and give it as much weight and credit as they may deem it is entitled, if any. It is clear that the Senior Hearing Officer utilized his discretion in determining whether the evidence and testimony presented was substantial and persuasive.

Evidence

            The evidence presented by the Complainants had little to no relevance as to market value or the median level of assessment of agricultural, residential and/or commercial property within the county.  Newspaper articles, notice of increases, property record cards, photographs, prior ratio studies, etc fail to establish the market value of the property or the median level of assessment for any classification of property.

Discrimination

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2015; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003.)  Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690, 695 (Mo. 1959). Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination.  Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.  State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.

Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination

Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2015. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office.

Complainants must then prove the average level of assessment for the classification of property in which he is claiming lack of uniformity or discrimination in the County for 2015 in this appeal, discrimination is alleged in all three classifications. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample within the classification of properties in Taney County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the assessor’s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.

 

The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all the property within the same classification, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Taney County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive.

Complainants’ discrimination claim fails, first, because they failed to establish the market value of their property. The Complainants presented no evidence as to market value. Complainant presented the property record cards of properties in appeals 15-89543, 15-89544, and 15-89545.  The Complainants allege that the valuation determinations were mathematically incorrect and that the Assessor failed to use accurate depreciation judgment on some of the improvements.  The valuation determinations made by the Assessor were reviewed by the Board of Equalization.  The Board of Equalization lowered the value in 15-89543 and 15-89545.  There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. 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)  The evidence presented by the Complainants is not substantial and persuasive to establish the market value of the subject properties on January 1, 2007. Hermel, supra. Without establishing their market value, Complainants cannot establish an assessment ratio.  Without establishing a ratio, they cannot establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value that any other property.

However, even if Complainants had established their market value, their discrimination claim would still fail because they have not demonstrated that a statistically significant number of other properties within the sub-classification in Taney County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property.

Complainants’ properties are within three classifications of properties – residential, commercial and agricultural. The Complainant would need to demonstrate that a statistically significant number of other properties within each of the classifications in Taney County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property.  The Complainants only evidence is an email regarding the 2013 Ratio Studies performed by the State Tax Commission on residential and commercial properties and property record cards in an agricultural property (D), mixed use property -agricultural and residential property (Exhibit M) and residential properties (N, Q1, Q2).  The Complainant presented the assessment book for Taney County as of June 30, 2015 (Exhibit V) which would have been prior to the closing of the assessment book and any changes entered by the Board of Equalization.  Complainant claims Exhibit V shows 21,424 properties increased in value and 22,431 properties’ values decreased or stayed the same.  The exhibits fail to establish the average level of assessment for the agricultural, residential and/or commercial classification of property in Taney County in 2015.

Summary and Conclusion

After review of the evidence presented, it is clear that the Senior Hearing Officer made a considered and well reasoned determination as to discrimination based upon the evidence before him. The State Tax Commission has reviewed the record which is properly before it and finds that there was no error made.  Complainants have failed to state any error warranting a change in the Senior Hearing Officer’s determination. Complainant failed to show either an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property within the same class or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.  The taxpayer failed to prove the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”

ORDER

The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, are AFFIRMED and 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 Taney 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.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

Randy Holman, Commissioner

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 15 day of March, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

 

 

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax

 

 

 

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

JAMES & KAREN STRAHAN, ) Appeal Number 15-89543 through 15-89545
JAMES STRAHAN ) Appeal Number 15-89546 through 15-89549
  )  
Complainant(s), )  
  )  
v. )  
  )  
CHUCK PENNEL, ASSESSOR, )  
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI, )  
  )  
Respondent. )  

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Assessed values of Taney County, MO Assessor and/or Decisions of the County Board of Equalization of Taney County, Missouri are AFFIRMED. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish true market values of subject properties and did not meet the burden of proof to show discrimination.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at:

15-89543 $12,748 residential assessed value
15-89544 $16,890 commercial assessed value
15-89545 $2,644 residential assessed value
15-89546 $600 agricultural assessed value
15-89547 $1,200 agricultural assessed value
15-89548 $950 residential assessed value
15-89548 $950 residential assessed value

 

Complainant James Strahan appeared pro se.

Complainant Karen Strahan did not appear.

Respondent Chuck Pennel appeared pro se.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.

ISSUE

All of Complainant(s) appeals were filed on the basis of discrimination. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2015.  The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on November 24, 2015 at the Taney County Courthouse, Forsyth, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject properties are identified by map parcel number or locator number as follows:
15-89543 17-6.0-13-000-000-010.001
15-89544 09-4.0-19-000-000-007.014
15-89545 09-4.0-19-000-000-012.000
15-89546 09-9.0-29-000-000-005.000
15-89547 09-9.0-29-000-000-005.013
15-89548 09-9.0-29-000-000-005.017
15-89549 09-9.0-29-000-000-005.016

 

  1. Description of Subject Property.
15-89543 Complainants’ Primary Residence
15-89544 Complainants’ Commercial Business
15-89545 General Residential Property
15-89546 Empty Lot with Hay in Wellington Parkway Subdivision (Exhibit 1)
15-89547 Empty Lot with Hay in Wellington Parkway Subdivision (Exhibit 1)
15-89548 Empty Lot in Wellington Parkway Subdivision (Exhibit 1)
15-89549 Empty Lot in Wellington Parkway Subdivision (Exhibit 1)

 

  1. Assessment. The Assessor and Board valuations of the subject properties are as follows:
Appeal # Assessor Value BOE Value Complainant’s Proposed Value
15-89543 $14,200 Residential $12,784 Residential Value Proposed by BOE
15-89544 $16,890 Commercial $16,890 Commercial 2014 Value Proposed by BOE
15-89545 $2,670 Residential $2,644 Residential 2014 Value Proposed by BOE
15-89546 $850 Agricultural $600 Agricultural Value in Use
15-89547 $1,780 Agricultural $1,200 Agricultural Value in Use
15-89548 $1,340 Residential $950 Residential $950 Residential
15-89549 $1,340 Residential $950 Residential $950 Residential

 

  1. Complainant’s Evidence.
Exhibit Description Admitted Without Objection
A Newspaper Article Re: Index X
B Ratio Study Email for 2013 X
C Newspaper Article X
D Increase Notice 5/26/2015 X
E Property Record Card X
F Public Website BEACON Printout X
G Increase Notice 6/12/2015 X
H Property Record Card X
I No Exhibit I  
J Notice 6/11/2015 X
K Property Record Card X
L Newspaper Article Re: 2.35 Index X
M Property Record Card X
N Property Record Card X
O Increase Notice X
P Property Record Card X
Q1 & Q2 Record Cards Showing False Information X
R1 to R10 Photographs of Structures Not Depreciated X
S & S1 Receipts X
T, T1 & T2 Letters to Taxpayers From Respondent X
U & U1 Newspaper Articles X
V CD of Assessment Book X
W Article X, Section 3, Missouri Constitution X
X Map of Properties Owned by Complainant(s) X
Y Map of Structures Owned by Complainant(s) X

 

  1. Respondent’s Evidence.
Exhibit Description Admitted Without Objection
1 Overhead Photograph of Wellington Parkway

 

X
  Subdivision with 15-89546, 15-89547,  
  15-89548 & 15-89549 Subject Properties  
2 Picture of 15-89544 Subject Property X
3 Property Card of 15-89544 Subject Property X

 

  1. Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2015.
  2. Taney County Board of Equalization. The Taney County Board of Equalization met on several occasions.  A motion was made regarding the reduction of valuations of certain properties due to such properties not being physically visited.  The Board attempted to clarify, without success, the motion as to what properties the motion applied to, as the Board members could not agree as to each of their intentions regarding such motion.  The motions were unclear and thus were not effectuated.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

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.  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 true value in money for the property under appeal.  By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

 

In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 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.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.   Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).   “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).  In the present appeals Complainants’ evidence leaves the Hearing Officer herein “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” Id. Consequently, Complainants’ did not meet their burden of proof.

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. 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).  True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Mo. App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).

It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.

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.

 

  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 inthe 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.

 

 

Investigation by Hearing Officer

In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo.  The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant and Respondent’s appraiser.

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); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).

The Supreme Court of Missouri has also held that evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time. The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value. St. Joe Minerals Corp., supra

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. 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).

Agricultural Land

                Certain properties that are the subjects of these appeals are agricultural properties. Under Missouri statutory law, property shall be classified as agricultural and horticultural property when “real property [is] used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops . . .”  Section 137.016.1(2) RSMo.  The classification is determined by the actual use put to the property. Northtown Village v. Don Davis, Assessor, Jasper County. Mo., Appeal Nos. 03-62558 (May 27, 2004)[ providing that the definitions in Section 137.016 (2000) illustrate that “the classification turns on the actual use put to the property.]   Cutting hay is an agricultural activity and such activity is sufficient to cause real property to be classified as “agricultural property”. Dickerson v. Curtis Koons, Assessor, Cass County, Mo. Appeal Number 01-49004 (June 11, 2002); Ernest W. Giddens, Trustee v. Rick Kessinger, Assessor, Greene County, MO., Appeal No. 05-33000 (Commission Decision April 19, 2007).

Complainant desires the agricultural properties to be valued based upon their value in use. However, Complainant did not submit any evidence of the soil grade of the properties and thus Complainant did not meet his burden of proof.

Discrimination

 

            In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2015; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction.   Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690, 695 (Mo. 1959).  Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination.  Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.   State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse, supra.

Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination

Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2015. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office.

Complainants must then prove the average level of assessment for residential property in Taney County for 2015. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Taney County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the assessor’s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.

 

The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all residential property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Taney County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive. Savage, supra.

Complainants’ discrimination claims fail because they failed to establish the market value of their property. Without establishing their market value, they cannot establish their assessment ratio.  Without establishing their ratio, they cannot establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value that any other property.

However, even if Complainants had established their market value, their discrimination claim would still fail because they have not demonstrated that a statistically significant number of other properties, within the same classification and type, in Taney County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property. Properties within the same classification can be assessed at different indexes based upon variances within the particular properties.

Because Complainants have failed to establish the market value of their property and have failed to establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other properties in Taney County, they have failed to establish discrimination.

Complainants Fail to Prove Values

Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2015, for the subject properties. Complainants’ evidence 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).

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject properties are AFFIRMED

The assessed value for the subject properties for tax year 2015 are set at:

15-89543 $12,748 residential assessed value
15-89544 $16,890 commercial assessed value
15-89545 $2,644 residential assessed value
15-89546 $600 agricultural assessed value
15-89547 $1,200 agricultural assessed value
15-89548 $950 residential assessed value
15-89548 $950 residential assessed value

 

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 Taney 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 this 8th day of December, 2015.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

John Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

 

Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on December 8th, 2015 or by mail to the following Individuals of this Order

James & Karen Strahan, Complainant(s), jestrahan@centurylink.net

Chuck Pennel, Assessor, chuckp@co.taney.mo.us

Sheila Wyatt, Collector, swyatt@co.taney.mo.us

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator