STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|LAWRENCE & GERALDINE LISTENBERGER,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 15-13408|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
On August 2, 2016, Senior Hearing Officer Amy Westermann issued her order affirming the value placed upon the subject property by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, finding that Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence demonstrating market value. Respondent filed a Response. No Reply was filed.
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.
Complainant’s Application for Review/ Appeal Brief
Complainants filed a two page document that was treated as an Application for Review. Pursuant to 138.432 RSMo. “[a] complainant, respondent-assessor, or other party subject to a decision and order of a hearing officer, may file with the commission, within thirty days following the date of notification or mailing of such decision and order, an application to have such decision and order reviewed by the commission. Such application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. …” (emphasis added). Complainants’ filing does not set forth any specific error of the Hearing Officer. The filing sets forth points:
- Respondent’s appraiser should have included a specific property in their sales comparison report;
- The pumps on their property are in PVC pipes and not in buckets; and
- Complainants did not have enough time to read the county evidence.
Notwithstanding this procedural deficiency, the following Decision and Ruling is issued.
DISCUSSION AND RULING
The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact. Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).
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).
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). It places the burden of going forward with some substantial and persuasive evidence on the taxpayer. 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).
Complainants failed to state any facts which tend to demonstrate that the decision of the Hearing Officer was erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to Missouri law. Complainants Lawrence and Geraldine Listenberger (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Their evidence consisted of their report that a neighboring property sold for $135,000 in September, 2015 and then for $235,000 in November, 2015 after repairs were made. They also provided photographs of their property and the deferred maintenance issue – water in their basement.
On the other hand, Respondent, although under no burden to do so, offered substantial and persuasive evidence to support the board presumption. Respondent’s evidence consisted of the testimony of St. Louis County Residential Real Estate Appraiser Senior Sharon Kuelker and her Appraisal Report for the subject property. (Exhibit 1)
The appraiser opined that the subject property had a TMV of $147,500 as of January 1, 2015, which supported the BOE’s valuation of $147,200 as of January 1, 2015. In arriving at such opinion of value, the appraiser considered all three approaches to value the subject property: the cost approach, the income approach, and the sales comparison approach. The appraiser ultimately utilized the sales comparison approach which is an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property. The sales comparison approach is generally recognized to be the most reliable methodology to be utilized in the valuation of single-family residences. Furthermore, the adjustments made by the appraiser were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type. The adjustments properly accounted for the various differences between the subject and each comparable.
The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law is AFFIRMED. It is incorporated by reference, as if set forth herein verbatim, 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 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 this 25th day of October, 2016.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
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 25th day of October, 2016, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
301 W. High Street, Room 840
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
 The property was classified by the Respondent as suffering from deferred maintenance in need of significant repairs. The property suffers from water coming into the basement. The property owners have buckets or pvc pipe and hoses to address the issue.
 Respondent did not advocate increasing the BOE’s assessment of the subject property’s value.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|LAWRENCE & GERALDINE LISTENBERGER,||)|
|Appeal No. 15-13408
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainants Lawrence and Geraldine Listenberger (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 is set at $27,970 residential ($147,200 true market value or TMV).
Complainants appeared pro se.
Respondent Jake Zimmerman, St. Louis County Assessor, (Respondent) appeared by attorney Steven Robson, Assistant County Counselor.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann.
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true market value (TMV) of the subject property, as residential property, at $147,200. The BOE sustained Respondent’s valuation. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the TMV of the subject properties on January 1, 2015.
The Senior 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.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing, which was held on June 30, 2016, at the St. Louis Government Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 24M620101. The subject property is further identified as 68 Fortune Lane, Oakland, Missouri. (Complaint; Exhibit 1)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property is a 9,490 square foot residential lot improved by a 1,341 square foot, single family, ranch-style residence built in 1957. The residence has a 1,131 square foot unfinished basement, three bedrooms, and one bathroom. (Exhibit 1) The subject property has a two-car attached garage, one fireplace, a patio, a covered porch, a gas furnace, and central air conditioning. (Exhibit 1) The exterior consists of brick construction. (Exhibit 1) The subject property also has a water issue, i.e., water entering the basement. Seven pumps are located in the ground around the exterior of the residence to divert water from the basement. (Exhibits B and C; Exhibit 1) The condition of the subject property falls into the C5 category, which is defined as the “improvements feature obvious deferred maintenance and are in need of some significant repairs . . . rehabilitation, or updating. The functional utility and overall livability is somewhat diminished due to condition, but the dwelling remains usable and functional as a residence.” (Exhibit 1)
- Assessment. Respondent set a TMV of $147,200, residential, as of January 1, 2015. (Exhibit 1)
- Board of Equalization. The BOE sustained Respondent’s TMV of the subject property.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainants testified in their own behalf. Complainants testified that they had purchased the subject property in 1970 for approximately $27,500. Complainants testified that no mortgage encumbered the home. Complainants testified that the subject property had not been listed for sale or appraised within the three years prior to the evidentiary hearing. Complainant testified that they had made no improvements to the subject property between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2015. Complainants opined that the subject property’s TMV was $140,000 as of January 1, 2015. This opinion was slightly higher than Complainant’s proposed value of $137,500, which was listed on the complaint filed with the Commission.
Complainants offered as evidence a handwritten memorandum stating that a neighboring property, 45 Fortune Lane, had sold for $135,000, in September 2015, and was subsequently totally renovated and sold for $235,000 in November 2015. (Exhibit A) Complainants offered a packet containing three newspaper clippings showing residential real estate listings in the area of the subject property as well as 13 photographs of the interior and exterior of the subject property. (Exhibit B). Complainants also offered a hand drawn map of the subject property, which depicted the residence as well as the pumps around the exterior of the residence. (Exhibit C)
Respondent did not object to Complainants’ Exhibits A and C, which were received into the record. Respondent objected to Complainants’ Exhibit B with regard to the page containing the three newspaper clippings showing residential real estate listings in the area of the subject property on the ground of relevance. The Senior Hearing Officer sustained the objection and excluded only that page of the exhibit. The remainder of Exhibit B, consisting of the photographs of the subject property, was received into the record.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered as evidence the testimony of St. Louis County Residential Real Estate Appraiser Senior Sharon Kuelker (the Appraiser). Respondent also offered Exhibit 1, which contained the professional qualifications of the Appraiser and the Appraisal Report for the subject property. (Exhibit 1)
The Appraiser opined that the subject property had a TMV of $147,500 as of January 1, 2015, which supported the BOE’s valuation of $147,200 as of January 1, 2015. The Appraiser testified that she had used the sales comparison approach to arrive at her opinion of value. The Appraiser testified that she had performed an exterior inspection of the subject property and had concluded it showed significant deferred maintenance. The Appraiser chose four comparable properties close in proximity to the subject property that had sold between March 2014 and May 2016. (Exhibit 1) The adjusted sales prices ranged from $140,500 to $153,000. (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser used Comparable No. 4 for informational purposes only but placed no weight on it because of the sale date in 2016. The Appraiser testified that she gave equal consideration to Comparables 1, 2, and 3, which were all rated as C4 condition. (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser testified that the subject property had been rated as C5 condition based on the multi-listing service photos of the comparables. The Appraiser commented that all of the comparables were considered to be in superior condition due to the overall exterior appearance of each and due to the comments of the selling agents describing the interiors of those properties. (Exhibit 1) In conducting her analysis as described in Exhibit 1, the Appraiser made adjustments to the sale price of each of the comparables based on the location of the lot; the condition of the improvements; the number of bathrooms; and the various miscellaneous items such as garages, patios, and fireplaces. (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser made adjustments to Comparables 1 and 3 for additional square footage. The Appraiser made an adjustment to Comparable No. 3 for a partially finished basement and additional rooms below grade. (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser made a negative adjustment of $27,000 to each of the comparables due to the water issue present with the subject property. The Appraiser noted that Complainants had verbally stated the cost to correct the water issue would be $27,000. (Exhibit 1) The Appraiser also noted that she had viewed the seven electric exterior pumps, which were plastic buckets inserted into the ground with garden hoses inside to remove the water. (Exhibit 1) Exhibit 1 contained photographs of the exterior of the subject property, including some of the pumps. (Exhibit 1)
Complainant did not object to Respondent’s evidence, which was received into the record.
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 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 (2000) as amended.
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 property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
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. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. 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. Id. During the evidentiary hearing in this case, the Hearing Officer made inquiry of Complainant 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 and 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).
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 deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and is bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. 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). See also, 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).
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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 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. E.D. 1980).
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption. These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways. The BOE presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then it also would be applicable to the Respondent. The computer-assisted presumption is applicable only if (1) the BOE lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and (2) it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method. The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE sustained the initial valuation of Respondent; therefore, the computer-assisted presumption is not applicable in the present appeal.
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, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 897; 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. 1974).
In the present appeal based upon overvaluation, Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of true market value advocated by Respondent.
First, Complainants’ evidence was not substantial to support their opinion as to value. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Complainants did not utilize a recognized approach to valuing the property, i.e., the sales comparison approach, the cost approach, or the income approach.
Second, Complainant’s evidence was not persuasive to rebut the presumption of true market value advocated by Respondent. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id. Complainants’ evidence did not compel a conclusion that the subject property was worth $137,500 to $140,000. Although Complainants argued that the water issue detracted from the value of the subject property, Complainants offered no evidence, such as bids for repair or remediation, indicating that the TMV was or should be diminished by a particular amount due to the water issue.
Consequently, although Complainants presented some evidence to support their opinion of the subject property’s TMV, it is neither substantial nor persuasive because, if relied upon, the fact finder would be required to resort to speculation to conclude the TMV of the subject property on January 1, 2015, should be $137,500 to $140,000.
Conversely, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support his conclusion that the TMV of the subject property was $147,500 on January 1, 2015.
In arriving at an opinion of value, the Appraiser considered all three approaches to value the subject property: the cost approach, the income approach, and the sales comparison approach. The Appraiser ultimately utilized the sales comparison approach because the cost approach and the income approach were not applicable to valuing the subject property.
The Appraiser selected four comparable sales located in the same or similar marketing areas and made adjustments to the comparables, eliminating the fourth comparable due to its sale date occurring after the subject tax date. The Appraiser weighted Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 equally. Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 were located on the same street as the subject property. Notably, Comparable No. 2 was very similar to the subject property. It was of the same condition rating as the subject property, had the same square footage as the subject property, had the same unfinished square footage in the basement as the subject property, had the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms as the subject property, and had several of the same miscellaneous items as the subject property. The market sale price of Comparable No. 2 in October 2014 was $183,000. The adjusted sale price of Comparable No. 2 was $153,000. (Exhibit 1)
From this substantial and persuasive evidence presented by Respondent, it is reasonable to find and conclude that the TMV of the subject property on January 1, 2015, was $147,500.
The true market valuation for the subject property as determined by Respondent for the subject tax day and sustained by the BOE is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 is set at $27,970 ($147,200 TMV).
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
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 2, 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 2 day of August, 2016 to:
Lawrence and Geraldine Listenberger, Complainants, 68 Fortune Lane, Oakland, MO 63122
Steven Robson, St. Louis County Associate County Counselor, SRobson@stlouisco.com
 Respondent did not advocate increasing the BOE’s assessment of the subject property’s value.