JAMES R. SISK, )
- ) Appeal No. 08-90021
DEBBIE JAMES, ASSESSOR, )
TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal dismissed for failure of prosecution. Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting the assessment of Complainant’s property at $11,490 as residential property is AFFIRMED. Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing. Respondent appeared pro se. Case dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization, which set the valuation of the subject property at $60,481, assessed value of $11,490.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization.
- The subject property is located at 123 Myers Street, Licking, Missouri. The property is identified by map parcel number 16-3-7-2-7-6.
- By Order issued October 9, 2008, case was set for evidentiary hearing at
2:00 p.m. on November 6, 2008, at the Texas County Courthouse, Houston, Missouri. Complainant was informed by said Order that if he could not attend the hearing and needed a continuance a request must be made in writing and filed with the Commission no later than five days before the hearing date. No request for continuance was filed with the Commission by Complainant. Complainant was further advised that failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.
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.[i]
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[ii] The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer 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.[iii]
Dismissal of Appeal
A Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure of prosecution.[iv] Appeal is dismissed for failure of prosecution.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as set by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $11,490.
Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty 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 mailed 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. [v]
The Collector of Texas 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 November 21, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
[i] Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
[ii] 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).
[iii] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
[iv] 12 CSR 30-3.050 (3) (D) [v] Section 138.432, RSMo.