State Tax Commission of Missouri
JIM STEPHENSON,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.) Appeal Number 11-89548
)
JAMES STRAHAN,ASSESSOR,)
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $487,800, residential assessed value of $92,680.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Jason Coatney, Keck & Austin,
Springfield, Missouri.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of discrimination, the decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Commission takes this appeal to determine whether they was an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money, or at a ratio greater than the average 2011 residential assessment ratio for Taney County.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 from the decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on March 1, 2012, at the Taney County Justice Center, Forsyth, Missouri.
2.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 621 Peaceful Drive, Branson, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 9-3-7-16.057.The property consists of a 571.45 x 444.18 foot irregular lot.It is improved by a single-family house, with a base area of 3,299 square feet.[1]
3.Assessment.The assessor appraised the property at $487,800, a residential assessed value of $92,680.[2]The Board sustained the assessment.[3]
4.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant testified in his own behalf.He stated his opinion of value was as established by the Assessor – $487,800.Mr. Stephenson did not contend that the valuation of his home was incorrect.He contested the fact that other properties’ taxes on a per square foot basis were less than the per square foot taxes on his property.[4]
The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of Complainant in support of his theory of inequitable assessment.[5]
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Letter dated 9/14/11 to Commission |
|
B |
Undated Letter to Assessor |
|
C |
|
|
D |
MLS Data Sheet – 415 Tranquil |
|
E |
MLS Data Sheet – 593 Peaceful |
|
F |
MLS Data Sheet – 357 Cedar Meadows |
|
G |
MLS Data Sheet – 125 Meadowview |
There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012, therefore the assessed value for 2011 remains the assessed value for 2012.[7]
Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the subject property at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money, or at a ratio greater than the average 2011 residential assessment ratio for Taney County, or that residential property in Taney County was inequitably assessed in 2011.
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent testified in his own behalf.The following exhibits were received into evidence.
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
PRC – Barth Property |
|
3 |
PRC – Cofer Property |
|
4 |
PRC – Bourque Property |
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.[9]
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.[10]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.[11]
Presumption In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[12]This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption.It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.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.[13]Complainant’s evidence did not meet the standard of substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish that residential property in Taney County was inequitably assessed, or that the subject property was assessed at a ratio greater than the average 2011 residential assessment ratio for Taney County.
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.[14]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[15]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[16]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.
2.Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
3.A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
4.Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
5.Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
6.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.[17]
Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination – Inequitable Assessment
Complainant gave his opinion of fair market value as of January 1, 2011, for the subject property to be $487,800 as concluded by the Board.Respondent presented no evidence to challenge the value of $487,800.Accordingly, the true value in money of Complainant’s property as of January 1, 2011, is concluded to be $487,800.Applying the statutory assessment ratio of 19% produces the assessed value of $92,680.
In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination or an inequitable assessment, the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of the subject property on January 1, 2011; 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.[18]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.[19]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.[20]No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.[21]
Since Mr. Stephenson agreed with the valuation determined by the Assessor and affirmed by the Board and Respondent did not offer evidence to establish a different value it has been established that the property under appeal was assessed at the statutory assessment ratio.The only issue remaining is whether Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the average residential assessment ratio was less than 19% and therefore, resulted in an inequitable assessment of his property.
In order to establish an inequitable assessment, Complainant must have proved the average level of assessment for residential property in Taney County for 2011.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 (19% of fair market value) 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.[22]
Complainant’s’ claim of an inequitable assessment fails because he failed to establish that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Taney County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than 19% as is the subject property.Complainant’s claim of inequitable assessment is based upon his calculation of the per square foot taxes paid in 2010 on five properties.Five properties do not constitute a statistical representative or significant number of Taney County residential properties.Calculation of per square foot taxes does not establish the assessment ratio for properties.No evidence was presented to establish either the fair market value of any of the five properties or the assessed value of any of the five properties.
Complainant failed to establish that the subject property is being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other properties in Taney County.Since the taxpayer failed to establish an inequitable assessment the presumption of correct assessment by the Board was not rebutted.
Respondent’s Evidence
Since Complainant failed to prove an inequitable assessment of the subject property, there is no need to perform a review and analysis of Respondent’s evidence.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Taney County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $92,680.
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. [23]
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 March 15, 2012.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
_____________________________________
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 15th day of March, 2012, to:Jim Stephenson, 621 Peaceful Drive, Branson, MO 65616, Complainant; Jason Coatney, 1112 E. Walnut, Springfield, MO 65806, Attorney for Respondent; James Strahan, Assessor, P.O. Box 612, Forsyth, MO 65653; Donna Neeley, Clerk, P.O. Box 156, Forsyth, MO 65653; Sheila Wyatt, Collector, P.O. Box 278, Forsyth, MO 65653.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
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
[2] Residential property is assessed at 19% of its appraised value (true value in money, fair market value).Section 137.115.5, RSMo.
[5] Counsel for Respondent objected to Exhibits C through G on the ground of hearsay.MLS data sheets when not tendered in support of an appraisal are hearsay and not admissible.The exhibits were received only to provide within the case record the basis of Mr. Stephenson’s theory of an inequitable assessment of his property.
[12] 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)
[13] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)
[14] 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).
[15] 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).
[17] 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.