State Tax Commission of Missouri
JOSEPH JASSO,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.) Appeal Number 08-10124
)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY,MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $264,700, commercial assessed value of $84,700.Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared by Assistant County Counselor, Carl W. Becker.Case submitted on documents decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, misgraded agricultural land and misclassification, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $272,500, assessed value of $87,200, as commercial property.The Board reduced the value to $264,700, assessed commercial value of $84,700.Complainant proposed a value of $150,000 in the Complaint for Review of Assessment.The case was submitted on documents filed and evidentiary hearing was waived.
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 St. Louis County Board of Equalization.
2.Property Description.The subject property is located at 11940 Missouri Bottom Road, Hazelwood, Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 10M610286.The property consists of an unimproved tract of land 3.15 acres in size.[1]
3.Procedural History.
a.Complaint for Review of Assessment received 8/29/08
by the Commission.
b.Acknowledgement Letter sent 9/5/08.
c.Order Setting Discovery and Exchange Schedules issued 10/2/08.Deadline for filing and exchange of exhibits was set for 5/15/09.Deadlinefor filing and exchanging written direct testimony was set for 6/15/09.
d.Complainant filed Exhibits A through R and sought leave to file exhibitsbeyond the deadline on 6/5/09.
e.Order Granting Leave for Complainant to File Exhibits and Written DirectTestimony and Setting Exchange Schedule for Respondent issued 6/15/09.
f.Respondent’s Objections to Written Direct Testimony and Exhibits ofComplainant filed 6/21/09, with Rebuttal Exhibits 1 – 4.
4.Complainant’s Exhibits & Written Direct Testimony.The exhibits and written direct testimony filed by Complainant on June 5, 2009, consisted of the following documents:
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Real Estate Data Sheet – 11950 Missouri Bottom Rd. |
|
B |
Four photographs |
|
C |
Site Plan for Proposed Storage Building |
|
D |
Photo of subject house |
|
E |
Land Plat |
|
F |
Letter dated 5/22/03 on cost of removing of earth. |
|
G |
Description of subject property |
|
H |
Copy of Form Protest Letter |
|
I |
Photograph of subject property |
|
J |
Page from Appraisal Report on subject property |
|
K |
Change of Assessment Notice, dated 5/15/2006 |
|
L |
Change of Assessment Notice, dated 5/18/2007 |
|
M |
2006 Real Property Tax Bill for subject |
|
N |
1990 Real Property Tax Bill on property at 11950 Missouri Bottom Rd. |
|
O |
2008 Real Property Tax Bill on subject |
|
P |
Wall Cut & Alterations Drawings |
|
Q |
2008 St. Louis County BOE Appeal Form for subject property |
|
R |
Narrative Written Direct Testimony |
5.Objections to Complainant’s Exhibits.Respondent objected to Complainant’s exhibits on grounds of hearsay, relevancy, lack of foundation and other grounds.Objections sustained as to Exhibits A through F, H, J through R.Said exhibits are preserved in the Commission file, but excluded from evidence.Objections to Exhibits G and I overruled.Exhibits G and I received into evidence.See, Ruling on Objections, infra.
6.Grounds for Appeal.In additional to the ground of overvaluation, Complainant filed his appeal on the grounds of Misgraded Agricultural Land, Misclassification – residential or agricultural property.No evidence was presented to establish an agricultural use of the property or that the immediate most suitable economic use of the property was an agricultural use.[2]Therefore, the claims of Misgraded Agricultural Land and Misclassification of agricultural property are deemed abandoned.No evidence was presented to establish a residential use or that the immediate most suitable economic use of the property was a residential use.[3]
7.No New Construction.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.Therefore, the assessed value for the 2007 remains the same for 2008.[4]
8.Board Presumption Not Rebutted.Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2007, to be $150,000, as proposed in the Complaint for Review of Assessment.
9.Respondent’s Exhibits.Respondent filed the following exhibits as rebuttal exhibits.
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Professional Qualifications of Adam C. Woehler |
|
2 |
Certificate of Value on Subject Property – 8/3/05 – $275,000 |
|
3 |
Photograph of Subject Property |
|
4 |
Aerial Photograph of Subject Property |
Exhibits 1 through 4 are received into evidence.
10.2005 Purchase of Subject Property.The subject property was purchased by Complainant in August 2005 for $257,000.
11.Hearing Waived.By Order dated 6/15/09, Respondent was given until and including July 20, 2009, to advise the Hearing Officer if he consented to waiving of the evidentiary hearing.Respondent made no request to cross-examine Complainant and thereby waived evidentiary hearing and consented to submission of the case upon documents filed and admitted into evidence.
12.Respondent Rests Upon Presumption.Respondent presented no exhibits or written direct testimony to establish a case in chief on the issue of true value in money of the property under appeal.Respondent rested upon the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
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.[5]
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[6]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.[7]When as in this appeal, the taxpayer fails to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the fair market value of the property being appealed the Board presumption is not rebutted and the Board value stands.
Assessment Cycle
Real property is assessed on a two-year assessment cycle.The assessed value as of January 1st of the odd-numbered year remains the same for the following even-numbered year, unless there has been new construction and improvements.[8]When, as in this instance, there has been no new construction and improvements made during the odd-numbered year, the value for the even-numbered year is determined as of January 1st of the odd-numbered year.Therefore, the focus in this appeal is on the valuation as of January 1, 2007, even though the appeal was not filed until the 2008 tax year.
Ruling on Objections
Exhibits A – F, H, J – R
Respondent’s objections as to Exhibits A through F, H, J through R are sustained.There was a lack of foundation for the admission of the exhibits.The exhibits were not relevant to establish the market value of the property as of January 1, 2007.
Exhibit A provides no material evidence to establish the fair market value of the property at 11940 Missouri Bottom Road.
Exhibit B is not relevant to the issue of overvaluation.The photographs of car damage from an automobile accident purported to have occurred at the subject property do not establish fair market value for Complainant’s land.The other two photographs of the subject property at some time in the past provide no basis to arrive at the value of the property under appeal.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit C does not depict the subject property or provide market information on the issue of fair market value.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit D does not depict the subject property or provide market information on the issue of fair market value.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit E provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit F provides no market data addressing the fair market value of the subject property or any foundation of how the cost of removal of material on the site might impact value.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit H provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit J is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit K is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit L is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit M is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit N is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit O is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit P is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit Q is hearsay and provides no market data upon which a finding of fair market value can be determined.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibit R provides no market data to support the owner’s opinion of value.There is no foundation to establish relevancy.
Exhibits G & I
Respondent’s objections to Exhibits G and I are overruled.Both exhibits are relevant to establish the acreage of the subject and its front view.
Exhibit G contains information as to the size of the subject property.The subject’s acreage as shown by Exhibit G was verified from the Assessor’s website, the exhibit is received for this limited purpose, as it contains no other relevant information to establish fair market value as of January 1, 2007.
Exhibit I is a very similar depiction of the subject proper as Respondent’s Exhibit 3.The Hearing Officer was given no basis as to how Exhibit 3 rebutted anything proffered by Complainant.Exhibits 3 and I are both photographs of the subject property.The Hearing Officer finds no material or substantial difference in the two photographic depictions and concludes both are relevant for the limited purpose of establishing a front view of the subject.
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.[9]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[10]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[11]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.[12]
None of the documents submitted by Complainant provided any data from which a conclusion of market value under the required standard could be ascertained.There is no evidence in the record which falls under the standard for valuation.Therefore, there was no substantiation of the opinion of value put forth on the Complaint for Review of Assessment as the owner’s opinion of value.
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, 2007.[13]There 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.”[14]
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15]Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief.[16]
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[17]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[18]None of the tendered, but rejected documents provided by Mr. Jasso provided any foundation for his opinion of fair market value.Therefore, no probative weight can be given to the owner’s opinion of value.
Complainant has apparently tried to address for some time the issue of access to and development of his property.He has encountered problems from the local governments regarding the development of his property.Be all of this as it may, it does not establish what a willing buyer and seller would agree to as a purchase price for the subject property.In other words, Complainant brings before the Commission his arguments and disputes with local governmental entities related to his property.The Commission has no jurisdiction in such areas.The sole issue before the Hearing Officer is what a willing buyer and seller would have agree to as the purchase price of the property as of January 1, 2007.Issues regarding past disputes between Complainant and other governmental agencies are not relevant in this proceeding.There is no evidence on this record that the most likely purchase price in an arms-length open market transaction on January 1, 2007 would have been $150,000.Therefore, the presumption of the Board stands to establish fair market value.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined 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 year 2008 is set at $84,700 as commercial property.
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 for this Decision.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, MO65102-0146, 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. [19]
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 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 August 11, 2009.
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 11thday of August, 2009, to:Joseph Jasso, 11950 Missouri Bottom Road, Hazelwood, MO 63042, Complainant; Carl Becker, Assistant County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Philip Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator
[1] Exhibit G. Note: Hearing Officer confirmed the acreage by referencing the St. Louis County Assessor’s Real Estate Information website for locator number 10M610286.
[6] 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).
[7] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
[9] 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).
[10] Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 SW3d 645, 649 (Mo.App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 SW2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).
[12] 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.
[14] 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).
[17] Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).
[18] Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).