STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|JOSHUA & TRICIA MAXFIELD||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-30011|
|ROBERT MURPHY, ASSESSOR||)|
|JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the Jackson County Board of Equalization (BOE) determining the same true value in money (TVM) as the assessment made by Robert Murphy, Assessor, Jackson County, Missouri (Respondent) is AFFIRMED. The evidentiary hearing in this case was scheduled for November 15, 2017, at the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. Joshua Maxfield and Tricia Maxfield (Complainants) failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing and failed to prosecute the appeal.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2017.
Initially, Respondent appraised the subject property at $422,479 (TVM), as residential property. The BOE set the TVM of the subject property at $422,479. Complainants appealed, on the ground of the methodology of Respondent at determining TVM. In their Complaint for Review of Assessment, Complainants proposed a TVM of $368,223.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the BOE.
- The subject property is located at 19 W. 52nd Street, Kansas City, Missouri. The property is identified by Parcel/Locator number 30-820-11-05-00-0-00-000.
- By Order dated September 22, 2017, this case was set for an Evidentiary Hearing at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at the Jackson County Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri. The Order informed Complainants that if they 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. Subsequently, a continuance was granted and a new Evidentiary Hearing date was set for 1:15 p.m. on November 15, 2017. Thereafter Complainants did not file any timely request for a continuance; although, in an email, sent and received on November 14, 2017, Joshua Maxfield stated he would not be attending the Evidentiary Hearing due to a business meeting that had been scheduled such date for the time set for the Evidentiary Hearing. Complainant Joshua Maxfield did not request a continuance. Complainant Joshua Maxfield did not state that Complainant Tricia Maxfield was unable to attend or would not be attending.
- The evidentiary hearing in this appeal was commenced at 1:20 p.m. on the record after a grace period was allowed for Complainants to appear. As stated above, Complainants did not appear. Respondent appeared by Counsel Whitney Miller, who announced ready for the evidentiary hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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 BOE 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).
The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2017 is set at $80,270 ($422,479 TVM).
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 Jackson 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 December 5, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 5th day of December, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.