State Tax Commission of Missouri
| LANTZ WELCH, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant(s), | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal # 14-79025 |
| ) | thru 14-79028 | |
| DAVID COX, ASSESSOR | ) | |
| PLATTE CO., MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
On February 2, 2015, Senior Hearing Officer John Treu issued his order affirming the value placed upon the subject properties by the Platte County Board of Equalization, and finding the correct market value, in each appeal, on January 1, 2014, was $60,000. Complainant appealed.
Standard Upon Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request. The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision. The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.
Issue
Complainants assert that the Hearing Officer erred in determining that the proper way to value the subject lots (two in each parcel) was as an assemblage rather than as individual fishing lots inasmuch as there was no evidence that the relevant municipal building ordinance had been complied with to make the lots “buildable” lots under the municipal code. In the alternative, if it was appropriate to value the lots in the parcels as assemblages, the Hearing Officer erred in finding that Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to overcome the presumption in favor of the Board of Equalization.
DISCUSSION AND RULING
Property is valued based upon its highest and best use. Highest and best use is typically defined as “The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legally permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum profitability.” Cp. Ex. A, pg. 20. This standard is recognized in Missouri. Complainants’ own appraiser indicated that the highest and best use of the subject parcels was for residential development (Cp. Ex. A, pg. 20-22) making Complainants’ “fishing” lot argument unpersuasive.
Complainants presented evidence indicating that the municipality allowed assemblage for the purpose of creating buildable lots. Cp. Ex. C. No evidence was presented tending to show that the municipality would deny lot combination if Complainants would apply for same. None of the assertions made in paragraphs 21 and 26 of Complainants’ Petition for Review establish that the Hearing Officer’s decision affirming the Board’s valuation of these lots as assemblages was illegal. Complainants cannot avoid taxation by refusing to utilize their property at its highest and best use.
The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).
Complainant, as the moving party, has the burden to (1) demonstrate that the Board’s value is incorrect and, then, (2) present substantial and persuasive evidence of the correct value. The Hearing Officer found that Complainant’s comparable sales were not sufficient to persuade him that the Board’s value was incorrect. The Complainant bears the burden of proving 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 (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).
Finally, Complainants assert that the Hearing Officer’s decision must be set aside because “no actual inspection was conducted by the County Assessor to support the Assessor’s original valuation, doubling the assessed value”. Paragraph 28, Petition for Review. This issue was not raised at the time of the appeal. From Complainants’ own Petition for Review, the Board’s value of $60,000 per parcel dates back to at least 2012 making this alleged error irrelevant to a determination of value as of January 1, 2014.
ORDER
The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is AFFIRMED and incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the Commission.
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 Platte 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 this 11th day of August, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy Holman, Commissioner
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 11th day of August, 2015, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator
State Tax Commission of Missouri
| LANTZ WELCH, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant(s), | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal # 14-79025 |
| ) | thru 14-79028 | |
| DAVID COX, ASSESSOR | ) | |
| PLATTE CO., MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Regarding Appeals 14-79025 & 14-79026, the Decision of the County Board of Equalization of Platte County, Missouri sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
Regarding Appeals 14-79027 & 14-79028, such are dismissed upon Complainant’s oral motion made at the evidentiary hearing.
True value in money for the subject properties, in both appeals 14-79025 & 14-79026, for tax years 2014 are set at $60,000 each, residential assessed value of $11,400 each.
Complainant appeared by attorney Luke Demaree.
Respondent appeared by attorney John Shank
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Platte County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuations of the subject properties. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2013. The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on 1/21/2015 at the Platte County Administration Building, Platte City, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject properties of the appeals remaining are respectively identified by the corresponding map parcel number or locator numbers & lot numbers:
14-79025- 20-5.0-15-400-002-001.000, Adjoining Lots 10 & 13
14-79026- 20-5.0-15-400-002-001.001, Adjoining Lots 11 & 12
Both parcels are in Lakeview Estates, Block B, Weatherby Lake, MO, Platte County, Missouri. (Exs. 1-4, A-B & E)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject properties consist of:
14-79025- a .51 acre parcel of land, consisting of 2 lots (Ex. A & B)
14-79026- a .48 acre parcel of land, consisting of 2 lots (Ex. A & B)
As to each parcel, Complainant’s appraiser and Respondent’s appraiser differed on the square footage of the respective parcels; however, the Platte County records within Exhibits A & B are in harmony with the .51 and .48 acre figures.
- Assessment. The Assessor appraised each parcel of property at $60,000, an assessed residential value of $11,400 each. The Board of Equalization sustained the appraisal of each parcel of property at $60,000, an assessed value of $11,400 each. (Complainant’s Complaints)
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant himself did not testify or appear for the evidentiary hearing. Complainant, through counsel, offered into evidence Exhibit A through Exhibit E. Exhibit A consisted of an Appraisal Report. Exhibit B consisted of a Correction to the Appraisal Report. Exhibit C consisted of Chapter 410.170 of the Weatherby Lake Code. Exhibit D consisted of Chapter 410.430 of the Weatherby Lake Code. Exhibit E consisted of a plat of Lakeview, Block B. All exhibits were objected to, objections were overruled and the exhibits were received into the evidentiary record to be given such weight and relevance as the Hearing Officer deemed proper. Lots 11 & 12 combined previously had a house built on them. Complainant’s Exhibit C, shows that Section 410.170.F of the City of Weatherby Lake, MO specifically deals with lot combinations. Such section states, “Lot Combination. This process may be used when an applicant is combining two (2) tracts of land owned by the applicant and which may not now constitute fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.” Complainant’s own appraisal report states several times that the parcels are buildable and/or that lots may be combined to make them buildable lots
- No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1 through 4, 7 & 8. All exhibits were objected to, objections were overruled and the exhibits were received into the evidentiary record to be given such weight and relevance as the Hearing Officer deemed proper.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Neither Complainant’s nor Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board which determined the true value in money as of January 1, 2013, for the respective parcels to be $60,000 each. See, Presumption In Appeal, infra.
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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money.
Presumption In Appeal
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). 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 is not evidence of value. 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. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra. Persuasive evidence is evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 2013. Hermel, supra. 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.” 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). A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.
“Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.” Carmel Energy at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980).
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
When advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, Respondent must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant. Hermel, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, supra.
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. 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). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. 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).
It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.
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:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- 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. 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.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo. The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant’s and Respondent’s appraiser.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
Methods of Valuation
Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission. It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).
Opinion Testimony by Experts
An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The State Tax Commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).
The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930). If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.
The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
Neither Complainant Nor Respondent Proves Values
Neither Complainant not Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2013 for the subject properties. Both Complainant’s and Respondent’s appraisers developed opinion of value relying upon an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the sales comparison or market approach. However, both appraisals were lacking. Both appraisals left the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980).
Complainant’s counsel advocated for the proposition that each the 4 lots, which make up the 2 parcels of property, the subject of the present appeals, should be valued separately as fishing lots because they purportedly do not meet the minimum standards of Weatherby Lake, MO codes for size of lots allowed to have construction of a residence. This argument was not substantial and persuasive in that:
a) Lots 11 & 12 combined previously had a house built on such, evidencing that lots may be combined for such purpose.
b) Complainant’s Exhibit C, shows that Section 410.170.F of the City of Weatherby Lake, MO specifically deals with lot combinations, as would be pertinent regarding both parcels the subjects of the pending appeals. Such section states, “Lot Combination. This process may be used when an applicant is combining two (2) tracts of land owned by the applicant and which may not now constitute fifteen thousand (15,000 square feet.”
c) Complainant’s own appraisal report states several times that the parcels are buildable and/or that lots may be combined to make them buildable lots, such being as follows:
i) “The two larger parcels at the western end of the 4 adjoining parcels have sufficient area to meet the Building Code Restrictions so are buildable” Exhibit A, Page 17
ii) “The parcels containing Lots 10 and 13, and Lots 11 and 12 are conforming legal use for residential development.”
“Lots 9 and 14 could be assembled to create one site that contains the 15,000 square feet required to meet the Building code restrictions. Next, Complainant’s appraiser assigned a per square foot value to be assigned to the two parcels which are the subject of the pending appeals. Complainant’s appraisal only used three (3) purported comparables. However, comparable number 2 was a bank sale of a lakefront lot and there was no substantial and persuasive evidence that the five (5) standards for valuations, set forth above were met, regarding such sale. Furthermore, the property the subject of comparable 2 was only on the market for six (6) days, which does not seem to evidence a reasonable exposure time to the market. This leaves only two purported comparable properties, which the Hearing Officer does not find substantial and persuasive evidence to be a sufficiently representative sample to be reliable.
Respondent’s appraisal opined a valuation for each parcel of property of $65,000 each, an amount above the value assigned by the Assessor and Board of Equalization, such being $60,000. Respondent’s appraiser used eight (8) purported comparables. However, purported comparables 6, 7 & 8 are active listing. Although Respondent’s appraisal reports note that “Comps #6, #7 and #8 are active listings that are used only to illustrate similar sites in the current market”, Respondent’s appraiser essentially testified that such active listing valuations were part of his valuation. The Hearing Office specifically asked Respondent’s appraiser if such were factored into his valuation. He did not respond in the negative. His response was that he believed such represented the market value of such parcels. Listing price does not evidence what a willing buyer and seller would agree to. Theoretically, in the event Respondent’s appraiser had assigned some downward adjustment to purported comparables 6, 7 & 8, based upon a recognized and/or persuasive method, such may have been entitled to some minimal weight. Without knowing how much weight Respondent’s appraiser assigned to purported comparables 6, 7 & 8, the Hearing Officer would have to resort to conjecture and speculation as to what values would have been assigned without such purported comparables.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject properties as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Platte County for the subject tax day are AFFIRMED. The assessed value for each of the subject properties for tax years 2014 are set at $11,400. Regarding Appeals 14-79027 & 14-79028, such are dismissed upon Complainant’s oral motion made at the evidentiary hearing.
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 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, 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. Section 138.432, RSMo
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Platte 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 February 2, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on February 2, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order
Melika T. Harris, Attorney for Complainant, jak4law@kc.rr.com; 200 NW Englewood Rd #B, Kansas City, MO 64118.
JR Shank, Attorney for Respondent, jrshank@gunnshank.com;
David Cox, Assessor, david.cox@co.platte.mo.us
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator