Jean Skouby v. Jody Paschal, Assessor Callaway County

February 14th, 2017

State Tax Commission of Missouri


Complainant(s), )
v. ) Appeal Number 16-46502
Respondent. )






The assessment of Complainant’s automobile is AFFIRMED.  Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the fair market value of the subject vehicle as of January 1, 2016.

The assessed value for tax year 2016 is AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared pro se.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.


Complainant appeals the valuation of a vehicle.  The Commission takes this appeal to determine the assessed value for the subject personal property on January 1, 2016.  The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.


  1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
  2. Subject Property. The subject property in this appeal is a 2002 Dodge Ram 2500 Quad Cab, 4-wheel drive pickup with a diesel engine.
  3. Assessment By Assessor. The Assessor set an assessed value on the subject vehicle of $3,220.
  4. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant testified and offered into evidence Exhibits A, B and C.  Complainant testified that the vehicle was sold in November of 2016 for $2,000 after initially asking $4,000.  Complainant presented no evidence regarding any other particular circumstances of the sale.

Exhibit A consisted of the tax history regarding the subject property.  Exhibit B consisted of National Automobile Dealers’ Association (NADA) printouts as of 12/18/2016.  Exhibit C consisted of printouts from the January through April, 2017 and September through December, 2015 editions of the NADA publication.  The exhibits were admitted into the evidentiary record.

The September through December, 2015 edition of the NADA publication for a 2002 Ram 2500 Quad Cab, 4-wheel drive pickup (Exhibit C) reflects two different average trade-in values, $4,750 for a ST model and $4,950 for an SLT model.  The edition also reflects that $4,800 should be added to the value for a vehicle with a 5.9L I6 HO T-Diesel Engine and that $4,700 should be added to the value for a vehicle with a 5.9L I6 T-Diesel Engine.  The testimony of Complainant’s witness was that the subject vehicle was an ST model with a 5.9L I6 T-Diesel Engine.  Complainant’s Exhibit B (December 2016 NADA) reflected a mileage adjustment of $700 based upon a mileage of 282,000 miles. Complainant testified the vehicle had 268,000 miles on the odometer on 1/1/16.

  1. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1 and 2.  Exhibit 1 consisted of the NADA Value printout of the Assessor for the subject vehicle.  Exhibit 2 consisted of a copy of Section 137.115.9 RSMo.  The exhibits were admitted into the evidentiary record.

Respondent testified that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the subject vehicle was utilized to generate Exhibit 1.  Based upon the VIN being input, Exhibit 1 reflected that the subject vehicle is an SLT model with a 5.9L I6 HO T-Diesel Engine.



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 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 is assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115 RSMo.

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).  It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date that is pertinent.  Hermel, supra.  Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a 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 in the 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.


Recommended Guide for Automobile Valuation


The assessor of each county and each city not within a county shall use the trade-in value published in the October issue of the National Automobile Dealers’ Association Official Used Car Guide, or its successor publication, as the recommended guide of information for determining the true value of motor vehicles described in such publication. In the absence of a listing for a particular motor vehicle in such publication, the assessor shall use such information or publications which in the assessor’s judgment will fairly estimate the true value in money of the motor vehicle.  Section 137.115.9 RSMo.    The assessor testified that for uniformity, he values vehicles according to the requirements of Section 137.115.9 RSMo.

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainant 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, 2016.  Hermel, supraThere 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).


In the present case, there is a dispute at to the model and engine of the subject vehicle.  The Hearing Officer deems the Respondent’s evidence the most substantial and persuasive regarding these issues.  Complainant presented no documentary evidence to support the contended variations in the vehicle from that reflected in Exhibit 1 which was generated by using the vehicle identification number of the subject vehicle.  By taking the average trade-in value of a 2002 Ram 2500 Quad Cab, SLT model 4-wheel drive pickup, $4950, and adding $4,800 for the 5.9L I6 HO T-Diesel Engine, a total value of $9,750 is reached. (Assessed value of $3,250)

The NADA manual (Exhibit B) allows for an adjustment for high mileage adjustment.  The manual sets forth an adjustment of $700 upon a mileage of 282,000 as of 12/18/16.  The testimonial evidence for Complainant was that the subject vehicle had 268,000 on the odometer as of 1/1/16.  The Hearing Officer would have to participate in speculation and conjecture to determine if a mileage adjustment was indicated by the October 2015 NADA guide for a mileage of 268,000 miles on the subject vehicle on 1/1/16.  Consequently, the Hearing Officer will not make an adjustment for mileage.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Callaway County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

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.  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 Callaway 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, February 14, 2017.


John Treu

Senior Hearing Officer


Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 14th day of February, 2017, 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


573-751-1341 Fax