Joseph D Hunter v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

December 13th, 2016

State Tax Commission of Missouri

JOSEPH D. HUNTER,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal No. 15-10035
	)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On November 3, 2016, Senior Hearing Officer Amy Westermann (Senior Hearing Officer) entered her Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE), which reduced the assessed value for the subject property (the Property) for tax years 2015-2016 at $7,360. (True value of $23,000) Joseph Hunter (Complainant) subsequently filed his Application for Review of the Decision with the State Tax Commission (the Commission). Jake Zimmerman, Assessor of St. Louis County (Respondent) filed his Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4). The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5). The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the Commission. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).

The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Senior Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968). Likewise, the Commission is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the Commission deems them entitled.

The Commission, having reviewed the record in this appeal and having considered the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer, enters its Decision and Order. Segments of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision have been incorporated into our Decision and Order without further reference.

DECISION

Respondent’s Point on Review

Complainant faxed 59 pages of assorted papers and documents. Complainant states that the decision was prejudiced, biased, erroneous and unfair.

Commission’s Decision

After review of the paperwork submitted by the Complainant, the Commission summarily denies the Complainant’s Application.

Procedural History

The subject property was valued by the Respondent at $25,200, $8,060 commercial assessed value. The BOE reduced the value to $23,000, assessed value of $7,360. Complainant filed an appeal with the STC.

An order setting the hearing on the appeal was issued on October 24, 2016. The appeal was set for evidentiary hearing on November 30, 2016 at 1:00 P.M. Complainant timely received a copy of the Order as evidenced by his faxed response dated November 22, 2016. His response was written on the Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing . The Order informed Complainant of the procedures if a continuance was needed.

The appeal was called on November 30, 2016. Complainant did not appear and had not requested a continuance. The SHO provided for additional time for Complainant to make his appearance.

Due to Complainant’s failure to appear and failure to request a continuance, Complainant did not meet his burden of substantial and persuasive evidence of valuation. Complainant failed to state in his Application for Review specific facts or law to explain why the SHO’s Decision is erroneous. Complainant did not provide reason for his failure to appear at the hearing or request a continuance.

ORDER

Upon review of the record and Decision and Order in this appeal, the Commission finds no grounds upon which the Decision and Order of the Senior Hearing Officer should be modified.

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 St. Louis 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.

SO ORDERED March 21, 2017.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 21st day of March, 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

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 FAX

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

JOSEPH D. HUNTER,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal No. 15-10035
	)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) lowering the assessment made by Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) is AFFIRMED. The evidentiary hearing in this case was scheduled for November 30, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building in Clayton, Missouri. Complainant failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing and failed to prosecute the appeal. Respondent appeared by Counsel Steven Robson. Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann presiding.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2015.

SUMMARY

Initially, Respondent appraised the subject property at $25,200 true market value, $8,060 assessed value, as commercial property. The BOE lowered Respondent’s valuation of the subject property to $23,000 true market value, $7,360 assessed value, as commercial property. Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation. In his Complaint for Review of Assessment, Complainant proposed a value of $20,000 true market value, $6,400 assessed value.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the BOE.

The subject property is located at 2142 North & South, St. Louis County, Missouri. The property is identified by Parcel/Locator number 15K341233.
By Order dated October 24, 2016, this case was set for an Evidentiary Hearing at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri. The Order informed Complainant that if he could not attend the Evidentiary 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. Complainant did not file any request for a continuance. Complainant did not communicate with the Senior Hearing Officer or the Commission that he would not be attending the Evidentiary Hearing as scheduled.[1]
The evidentiary hearing in Appeal No. 15-10035 was not held as scheduled at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building in Clayton, Missouri, because Complainant did not appear and did not request a continuance. Respondent appeared by Counsel Steven Robson, who announced ready for trial. Cause was announced and a grace period for Complainant to appear was provided.

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, including the application of any abatement. The Senior 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.

Presumptions In Appeals

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). In order to prevail, complainants must rebut the presumption of correct assessment by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on the tax day at issue. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. In an appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer still bears the burden of proof because the taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the Complainant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 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, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by Respondent and lowered by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 is set at $7,360 assessed value ($23,000 true market value).

Application for Review

Complainant 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 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432 RSMo 2000.

The Collector of St. Louis 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 2000, as amended.

Any Finding of Fact that is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision that is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2016.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Amy S. Westermann

Senior Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed or sent by U.S. Mail on this 13th day of December, 2016 to:

Joseph D. Hunter, Complainant, 60 Villa Coublay Dr., St. Louis, MO 63131

Steven Robson, Attorney for Respondent, srobson@stlouisco.com

Jake Zimmerman, Assessor/Respondent, rkoch@stlouisco.com

St. Louis County Collector’s Office, mdevore@stlouisco.com