State Tax Commission of Missouri
LINDEN OFFICE PARK, LLC,)
v.) Appeal Nos.09-79007 – 09-79009
LISA POPE, ASSESSOR,)
PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Decisions of the Platte County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by the Assessor are AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to comply with the Commission’s Order Setting Exhibit Exchange Schedule and Procedure.Complainant appeared by Counsel, RichardDvorak.Respondent appeared by Counsel John Shank.
Decision rendered and Appeals dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
Complainant appealed, 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 these appeals to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2009.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over these appeals is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the Platte County Board of Equalization.
2.Assessments.The Assessor appraised the property in Appeal 09-79007 at $1,190,000, commercial assessed value of $380,800.The Assessor appraised the property in Appeal 09-79008 at $596,000, commercial assessed value of $190,720.The Assessor appraised the property in Appeal 09-79009 at $100, commercial assessed value of $32.The Board of Equalization sustained the assessments.
3.Subject Properties.The property in Appeal 09-79007 is identified by map parcel number 19-4-19-1-10-3.The property in Appeal 09-79008 is identified by map parcel number 19-4-19-1-10-2.The property in Appeal 09-79009 is identified by map parcel number 19-4-19-1-10-1.
4.Non-Compliance With Exchange Order.By Order issued April 27, 2010, parties were to file with the Commission and exchange with the opposing party exhibits, on or before June 14, 2010.Respondent complied with this provision of the exchange order.Complainant did not comply with this provision of the exchange order.By said order, parties were to file with the Commission and exchange with the opposing party written direct testimony, on or before July 14, 2010.Neither party complied with this provision of the exchange order.No request for continuance of either exchange date was filed with the Commission by Complainant.
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.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.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.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.Taxpayer failed to present any evidence in the appeals.Therefore, the presumption of correct assessment for each property stands.
Dismissal of Appeal
A Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the orders and rules of the Commission and failure of prosecution.Appeals are dismissed for failure to comply with the orders and rules of the Commission and failure of prosecution.
The assessed valuations 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 the subject property in Appeal 09-79007 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $380,800.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 09-79008 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $190,720.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 09-79009 for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $32.
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.
If the parties have settled these appeals by stipulation, Complainant may file its Motion to Set Aside this Decision, within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service.A Motion to Set Aside must be accompanied by the executed stipulations for these appeals.
The Collector ofPlatte 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.
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 July 26, 2010.
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 26th day of July, 2010, to:Richard Dvorak, 7111 W. 98th Terrrace, Suite 140, Overland Park, KS 66212, Attorney for Complainant; John Shank, 9800 N.W. Polo, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64153, Attorney for Respondent; Lisa Pope, Assessor; 415 Third Street, P.O. Box 20, Platte City, MO 64079; Sandra Krohne, Clerk, 415 Third, P.O. Box 30, Platte City, MO 64079; Donna Nash, Collector; 409 Third, P.O. Box 40, Platte City, MO 64079.
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri – State Tax Commission
P.O. Box 146
301 W. High Street, Room 840
Jefferson City, MO 65102
 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).