STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|JIANGUO TAN AND MEIRONG YANG,||)|
|Complaint,||)||Appeal No. 19-10808|
|Jake Zimmerman, Assessor,||)|
|St. Louis County, Missouri||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
Jianguo Tan and Meirong Yang (Complainants) appealed the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decision finding that the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $490,400. Complainants claimed overvaluation. Complainants failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing and produced no evidence. The BOE’s decision is affirmed.
The evidentiary hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. Respondent timely appeared at the evidentiary hearing through counsel Monique Nketah. Complainants did not appear. Complainants did not seek a continuance or otherwise communicate any intent to proceed with the appeal.
Complainant Did Not Prove Overvaluation
The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued. Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Complainants did not appear at the evidentiary hearing and produced no evidence to support the overvaluation claim. Complainants’ failure to appear and present any evidence necessarily means Complainants failed to meet Complainants’ burden of proof.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The BOE’s decision is affirmed. The TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $490,400.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the certificate of service for this decision. The application “shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.” Section 138.432. The application must be in writing, and may be mailed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, or emailed to Legal@stc.mo.gov. A copy of the application must be sent to each person 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.
The Collector of St. Louis County, and 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 the disputed taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of section 139.031.
SO ORDERED March 26, 2021.
Laura A. Storck-Elam
Senior Hearing Officer
State Tax Commission
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. mail on March 26, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Complainants timely filed a complaint for review of assessment with the State Tax Commission (STC). The STC has authority to hear and decide Complainants’ appeal. Mo. Const. art. X, sec. 14; section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000.
 For over 150 years, Missouri law has recognized the self-evident proposition that “if there be no evidence sufficient in law to make a prima facie case on this issue, plaintiff cannot be entitled to recover.” Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131, 135 (Mo. 1867).