State Tax Commission of Missouri
| LARRY CARTER, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Number 14-61001 |
| ) | ||
| JOHN MCCUTCHEON, ASSESSOR | ) | |
| HOWARD COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent | ) |
ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
Order and Decision dated June 17, 2015, is amended nunc pro tunc as follows:
Any and all language in the Order and Decision relating to the assessed value of the subject properties for 2014 should be applied as follows as the subject properties are all historical vehicles:
TMV Assessed Value
1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup: $12,240 $612
1955 Chevrolet Belair: $21,050 $1,052
1955 Ford F100 Pickup: $10,000 $500
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on June 22, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order
Larry Carter, Complainant, 209 State Route DD, Fayette, MO 65248
Stephen Merrell, Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Respondent, howardcountypa@sbcglobal.net
John McCutcheon, Assessor, hocoass@yahoo.com
Sharon Himmelberg, Collector, skhimmelberg@gmail.com
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
State Tax Commission of Missouri
| LARRY CARTER, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Number 14-61001 |
| ) | ||
| JOHN MCCUTCHEON, ASSESSOR | ) | |
| HOWARD COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The assessment of Complainant’s automobile is SET ASIDE. Substantial and persuasive evidence was presented to allow the establishment of the true value in money for the vehicles as of January 1, 2014, by Complainant and Respondent. True value in money for the subject automobiles for tax year 2014 is set at:
1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup: $12,240
1955 Chevrolet Belair: $21,050
1955 Ford F100 Pickup: $10,000
Complainant Larry Carter appeared pro se.
Respondent John McCutcheon appeared pro se.
Appeal heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals the valuations of the aforementioned three vehicles. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject personal property on January 1, 2014. 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.
- Subject Property. The subject property are three vehicles, a 1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup, a 1955 Chevrolet Belair and a 1955 Ford F100 Pickup identified in Assessor’s Account 5153. The 1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup was sold for $1,000; although, such was admittedly not an arms length sale. The 1955 Ford F100 Pickup was sold in March, 2015 for $10,000.
- Assessment. The Assessor valued the vehicles at $18,000, $27,000 and 19,000 respectively.
- Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A which was received without objection. Exhibit A consisted of a letter to the Missouri State Tax Commission concerning the vehicles, pictures of the respective vehicles and computer printouts of NADA retail values on the respective vehicles, such being printed on 2/22/2015. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1 & 2 which were received without objection. Exhibit 1 consisted of the 2014 Assessment List, a copy of a portion of section 137.115 RSMo, a partial printout of vehicles without historic license plates obtained from the Missouri Dept. of Revenue, a copy of the Complaint for Review of Assessment and the cover page and value listing for the subject vehicles for a publication called the “Collectible Vehicle Value Guide” (May-June 2014 issue). Exhibit 2 consisted pages 4 & 5 of the aforementioned publication, including the definitions for excellent, good and fair condition.
The following chart shows the various values assigned by the parties and the evidence:
| Vehicle | Owner’s Opinion of Value | NADA Low Retail 02/22/2015 | Collectible Vehicle Guide May-June 2014 Good Condition & Value Assigned by Assessor | Collectible Vehicle Guide May-June 2014 Fair Condition |
| 1956 Chev. 3100 PU | $10,000-$12,000 (sold for $1,000, not arms-length) | $13,800 | $18,000 | $6,475 |
| 1955 Chev. Bel Air | $8,000-$10,000 | $11,700 | $27,000 | $15,100 |
| 1955 Ford F100 PU | $4,000-$5,000 (sold for $10,000) | $12,200 | $19,000 | $8,725 |
- Concluded Value. The true value in money of Complainant’s subject vehicles are as follows:
1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup: $12,240
1955 Chevrolet Belair: $21,050
1955 Ford F100 Pickup: $10,000
See, Complainants’ Burden of Proof and Evidence and Respondent’s Evidence
& Hearing Officer Finds Value, 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 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 is assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115 RSMo.
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.
Recommended Guide for Automobile Valuation
The assessor of each county and each city not within a county shall use the trade-in value published in the October issue of the National Automobile Dealers’ Association Official Used Car Guide, or its successor publication, as the recommended guide of information for determining the true value of motor vehicles described in such publication. In the absence of a listing for a particular motor vehicle in such publication, the assessor shall use such information or publications which in the assessor’s judgment will fairly estimate the true value in money of the motor vehicle. Section 137.115.9, RSMo.
The assessor did not utilize the October issue of the National Automobile Dealers’ Association Official Used Car Guide, apparently due to the age of the vehicles. Thus, no presumption of correct assessment exists. Instead the assessor utilized the “[g]ood” retail value for each respective vehicle from the May-June 2014 issue of the Collectible Vehicle Value Guide. Although it may be proper for an assessor to utilize such guide, for purposes of this Decision to determine the true value of the vehicle, the particulars regarding the condition of each vehicle must be considered, as well as whether the use of the guide regarding a particular vehicle is fair, equitable and reflective of the value of such vehicle.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof and Evidence and Respondent’s Evidence
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, 2014. 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. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 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. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975). A taxpayer does not meet his/her 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).
In the present case, three vehicles from the 1950’s are involved. Complainant has sold historical/classic type vehicles for approximately 50 years and regularly attends swap meets and auto auctions. Complainant testified he remains aware of what such type vehicles are sold for. Complainant opined as to what he believed the value of each vehicle to be, noting that his opinion of the value of the 1955 Ford F100 Pickup was half of what he sold such vehicle for in March of 2015. Additionally, evidence of NADA low retail values were presented as well as the values set for “good” and “fair” condition vehicles set for in the May-June 2014 issue of the Collectible Vehicle Value Guide.
This Hearing Officer finds that the value of the 1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup and the 1955 Chevrolet Belair is best reflected by averaging the good condition and fair condition values set forth in the May-June 2014 issue of the Collectible Vehicle Value Guide as the Hearing Officer believes each falls somewhere between such conditions. Regarding the 1955 Ford F100 Pickup, the Hearing Officer finds that the sales price for such constitutes the most substantial and persuasive evidence regarding such vehicle’s value, as such sale took place between a willing buyer and seller.
Hearing Officer Finds Value
The Hearing Officer considered the information provided by Complainant and Respondent and concluded on a value as follows:
TMV Assessed Value
1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup: $12,240 $4,080
1955 Chevrolet Belair: $21,050 $7,016
1955 Ford F100 Pickup: $10,000 $3,333
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Howard County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE. The valuation of the subject vehicles are as follows:
TMV Assessed Value
1956 Chevrolet 3100 Pickup: $12,240 $4,080
1955 Chevrolet Belair: $21,050 $7,016
1955 Ford F100 Pickup: $10,000 $3,333
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. Section 138.432, RSMo.
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Howard 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, June 17 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John J. Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on June 17, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order
Larry Carter, Complainant, 209 State Route DD, Fayette, MO 65248
Stephen Merrell, Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Respondent, howardcountypa@sbcglobal.net
John McCutcheon, Assessor, hocoass@yahoo.com
Sharon Himmelberg, Collector, skhimmelberg@gmail.com
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator