Louis Collobert v. Diana Blunk, Assessor Mercer County

December 21st, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

LOUIS COLLOBERT, )  
  )  
Complainant(s), )  
  )  
v. ) Appeal No. 15-70000
  )  
DIANA BLUNK, ASSESSOR, )  
MERCER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )  
  )  
Respondent. )  

 

ORDER

AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE SENIOR HEARING OFFICER

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

On December 21, 2015, Senior Hearing Officer John J. Treu (Senior Hearing Officer) entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the Board of Equalization of Mercer County (BOE) and setting the assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 at $14,860 residential and $2,995 agricultural. Subsequently, on January 5, 2016, the Senior Hearing Officer amended the Decision nunc pro tunc and set the assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 at $14,340 residential and $2,995 agricultural.

Louis Collobert (Complainant) filed his Application for Review of the Decision. Diana Blunk, Assessor, Mercer County, Missouri (Respondent), filed her Response.  Complainant filed his Reply.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard of 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. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4). The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request.  Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5).  The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the Commission.  Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).

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. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974).  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, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).  Likewise, the Commission is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the Commission deems them entitled.

The Commission, having reviewed the record and having considered the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer and the briefs of the parties, enters its Decision. Segments of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision have been incorporated into our Decision without further reference.

DECISION

 

Complainant’s Point on Review

            In his Application for Review, Complainant claims that he did not receive a fair and impartial hearing of his appeal on the grounds that:  (1) the Senior Hearing Officer and Respondent discussed Complainant’s case without Complainant being present; (2) prior to going on the record during the evidentiary hearing, the Senior Hearing Officer explained that he would divide the difference between Complainant and Respondent and that he would limit the evidence to the value of the subject property “without exploring the failure of the Respondent to do an on-site evaluation when invited four times by the Complainant to do so”; and (3) the Senior Hearing Officer disregarded Complainant’s “on-site appraisal from a Missouri licensed, experienced, and trusted appraiser.”

            In her Response, Respondent counter argues that Complainant did not invite the Assessor’s Office to the subject property.  Respondent argues that she and Complainant had specifically discussed that the Assessor’s Office would not conduct a site visit because the Assessor’s Office used the method of mass appraisal to value properties.  Respondent also counter argues that neither she nor her employees discussed Complainant’s appeal or the evidentiary hearing with the Senior Hearing Officer without Complainant being present Specifically, Respondent argues that, in the presence of both parties, the Senior Hearing Officer explained how the evidentiary hearing would be conducted and that he would review all of the evidence before making a decision in the case.  Respondent further counter argues that the Senior Hearing Officer never stated that he would “divide the difference” between the parties; that Respondent’s evidence supported the conclusion that Complainant’s property had been valued correctly; and that Complainant’s expert had made mistakes in his appraisal of Complainant’s property and was unable to provide a basis for the information used valuing the subject property with the cost approach. 

In his Reply, Complainant presents narrative descriptions of a good faith meeting between himself and Respondent; of Complainant’s decision to relocate to Mercer County and to build his home; of his perspective of Respondent’s “motivation” for reassessing the subject property; and of his perspective of the Senior Hearing Officer’s conduct prior to the evidentiary hearing.  Complainant also reiterates his argument that his expert’s opinion as to the value of the subject property should have been accepted as presented.

Commission’s Ruling

For the reasons that will now be set forth in response to Complainant’s Points on Review, the Commission finds Complainant’s arguments to be unpersuasive to warrant either a modification or overturning of the Decision.

Factual and Procedural History

            According to the record before us, the subject property consists of a tract of land of 1+ acre, improved by a single family log home, which sits on a slab.  The home consists of four rooms and one bathroom.  The home has a gross living area of 1,148 square feet and is of good design, construction, condition, and quality.

On December 21, 2015, the Senior Hearing Officer entered his Decision setting aside the BOE’s assessment setting the assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016. More specifically, the Senior Hearing Officer made the following factual findings:

  • Respondent set a TMV of the residential portion of the subject property at $78,210, resulting in an assessed residential value of $14,860;
  • Respondent set a TMV of the agricultural portion of the subject property at $24,960, resulting in an assessed agricultural value of $2,995;
  • The BOE affirmed the values set by Respondent;
  • Complainant presented the appraisal report and the testimony of a state certified appraiser, who opined that the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2015, was $62,000 for the structure and the land consisting of 1+ acre;
  • Complainant presented evidence that a building site’s value was $3,500 per acre;
  • Respondent presented a builders list of square foot prices; a list of comparable 1-acre sites valued at $4,000 per acre; a photo verifying Complainant’s Comparable #2; a comparative market analysis to support valuation; an agricultural land comparison; a comparable sale to compare the entire acreage; a map; and a compliance order from the State Tax Commission;
  • Neither party objected to the evidence presented by the other party.

 

Based upon the factual findings, the Senior Hearing Officer concluded that Comparable #1 was most like the subject property. Complainant’s appraiser opined that the adjusted sale price of Comparable #1 was $63,855.  (Exhibit A)  However, the Senior Hearing Officer concluded that $3,050 should be added to the value of Comparable #1 because that amount represented the difference in value between the subject property’s site acreage and the acreage of the building site of Comparable #1.  Complainant’s appraiser also made a downward adjustment of $4,000 to Comparable #1 for condition even though he characterized the condition of both the subject property and Comparable #1 as “good,” and explained the reason for the adjustment was because Comparable #1 is new.  The Senior Hearing Officer was not persuaded that this was a proper, market-based adjustment and concluded that the condition adjustment should be added back to the value of Comparable #1.  The Senior Hearing Officer thereafter concluded that the new adjusted sale price of Comparable #1 was $70,935.

The Senior Hearing Officer concluded that the evidence in the record established that the residential portion of the subject property should be set at $13,475 assessed value ($70,935 TMV). The Senior Hearing Officer further concluded that the agricultural portion of the subject property, which was not appealed, should remain at $2,995 assessed value ($24,960 TMV).

Subsequently, on January 5, 2016, the Senior Hearing Officer amended the Decision nunc pro tunc and set the assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 and 2016 at $14,340 residential and $2,995 agricultural.  In his Order Nunc Pro Tunc, the Senior Hearing Officer explained that the correction was necessary because the initial Decision had failed to include the valuation for two sheds and a workshop.  Respondent had valued the two sheds at $1,710 TMV and the workshop at $2,827 TMV.  Complainant’s appraiser had opined that the two sheds might have added $1,000 to his valuation of the subject property and offered no opinion as to the value of the workshop.

The Commission will now address each of Complainant’s Points on Review under the following heading: Evidentiary Hearing and Weight of the Evidence.

Evidentiary Hearing and Weight of the Evidence

            In his sole point on review, Complainant alleges that he did not receive a fair and impartial hearing by the Senior Hearing Officer.  We disagree.

A Hearing Officer, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, 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. Section 138.431.5 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015.

In this case, the record before us, as well as the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision, indicate that Complainant received a fair and impartial hearing. The Senior Hearing Officer posed a question to Complainant, on the record, which was “[d]o you feel you have been able to present your case to me?” To such question Complainant responded in the affirmative. Such response does not evidence a lack of a fair and impartial hearing.

First, although Complainant alleges that the Senior Hearing Officer and Respondent discussed Complainant’s case without Complainant being present, Respondent vehemently denied that any ex parte communication occurred.  Notably, Complainant does not provide any evidence to support his allegation that the Senior Hearing Officer discussed Complainant’s case and “the decision he would reach in the matter” in Complainant’s absence.  Complainant merely drew a speculative conclusion from the fact that the Senior Hearing Officer had arrived at Respondent’s office for the evidentiary hearing prior to Complainant’s own arrival.  Furthermore, Complainant did not dispute Respondent’s argument that it was Complainant, not Respondent, who remained in discussion with the Senior Hearing Officer and one of Respondent’s employees following the hearing.

Second, with regard to Complainant’s allegation that the Senior Hearing Officer ruled that he would limit the evidence to the value of the subject property “without exploring the failure of the Respondent to do an on-site evaluation when invited four times by the Complainant to do so,” we find that it was well within the Senior Hearing Officer’s authority as fact finder and concluder of law in the case to allow or limit certain evidence into the record. Complainant put forth evidence in the form of an appraisal report and the testimony of a state certified appraiser.  Respondent put forth evidence in the form of various documents and exhibits intended to prove the accuracy of Respondent’s valuation of the subject property.  The Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision clearly indicates that the Senior Hearing Officer reviewed and weighed the evidence presented and gave more weight to Complainant’s appraisal report and the testimony of Complainant’s appraiser than to Respondent’s evidence.  Even so, the Senior Hearing Officer was not required to accept the appraiser’s report and testimony in its entirety; rather, the Senior Hearing Officer recognized errors in the adjustments made to the comparables, corrected them, and explained his reasoning for correcting the errors.

Summary & Conclusion

A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample support for the determinations made by the Senior Hearing Officer. There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer.  A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Senior Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that he abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

The Senior Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Complainant. Complainant received a fair and impartial evidentiary hearing.  Complainant’s Point on Review is denied.

ORDER

Upon review of the whole record in this appeal, the Commission finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.  The Decision and Order of the Senior Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is 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 Mercer 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 May 24, 2016.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid or emailed this 24th day of May, 2016, to:

Louis Collobert, Complainant, 20576 Colony Loop, Mercer, MO 64661

Diana Blunk, Assessor, assessor@grm.net

Susan Moore, Collector, smoorecoll_treas@yahoo.com

 

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 FAX

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

LOUIS COLLOBERT, )
)
Complainant(s), )
)
v. ) Appeal no. 15-70000
)
DIANA BLUNK, ASSESSOR, )
MERCER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Mercer County is SET ASIDE.  The record before the Hearing Officer provides substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value of the subject property.

Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax year 2015 is set at $13,475 ($70,935 True Market Value) residential, $2,995 agricultural.

ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

 

Order and Decision dated December 21, 2015, is amended nunc pro tunc as follows:

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Mercer County is SET ASIDE.  The record before the Hearing Officer provides substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value of the subject property.

Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax year 2015 is set at $14,340 ($75,472 True Market Value) residential, $2,995 agricultural assessed value.  (Underline added to note change in numbers).  This change is necessitated by the fact that the previous Decision failed to include the valuation for two sheds and a workshop.  The assessor valued the two sheds at $1,710 True Market Value (Complainant’s appraiser opined generally that such might have added $1,000 to his valuation).  The assessor valued the workshop at $2,827 True Market Value.  Complainant’s appraiser offered no opinion on such structure.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2016.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

John J. Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on December 21, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order

 

Louis Collobert, Complainant, linluco@grm.net

Diana Blunk, Assessor, assessor@grm.net

Susan Moore, Collector, smoorecoll_treas@yahoo.com

John J. Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

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

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax

 

 

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

 

LOUIS COLLOBERT, )
)
Complainant(s), )
)
v. ) Appeal no. 15-70000
)
DIANA BLUNK, ASSESSOR, )
MERCER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Mercer County is SET ASIDE.  The record before the Hearing Officer provides substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value of the subject property.

Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax year 2015 is set at $13,475 ($70,935 True Market Value) residential, $2,995 agricultural.

Complainant Louis Collobert appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared pro se.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals on the ground of overvaluation of only the residential valuation of the subject property.  Complainant does not appeal the agricultural valuation.  The Mercer County Board of Equalization set the true market value of the subject property at $78,210, residential assessed value of $14,860 and $24,960, agricultural assessed value of $2,995.  The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the residential portion of the subject property on January 1, 2015.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on December 11, 2015 at the Mercer County Courthouse, Princeton, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 06060230000004.01.  It is further identified as 20576 Colony Loop, Mercer, MO.  (Exhibit A).
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a tract of land of 1+ acre, improved by a single family log home, which sits on a slab.  The home has 4 rooms and 1 bathroom.  The home has a gross living area of 1,148 square feet and is of good design, construction, condition and quality. (Exhibit A).
  5. Assessment. The Assessor set a true market value on the subject property at $78,210, residential assessed value of $14,860 and $24,960, agricultural assessed value of $2,995 (Complaint for Review).
  6. Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization affirmed the values set by the Assessor.
  7. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant Louis Collobert offered Exhibit A which consisted of an appraisal report by David George.  Exhibit A was received into evidence without objection
  8. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1 through 8 which consisted of the following:
Exhibit 1 Builders List of Square Foot Prices
Exhibit 2 1 acre Comparables @ $4,000/acre
Exhibit 3 Picture to Verify Address of Complainant’s Comparable #2
Exhibit 4 Comparative Market Analysis to Support Valuation
Exhibit 5 Agricultural Land Comparison
Exhibit 6 Comparable Sale to Compare Entire Acreage
Exhibit 7 Map
Exhibit 8 Compliance Order from State Tax Commission

 

Exhibits 1 through 8 were received into evidence without objection.

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.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainant 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, 2015.  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).

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 a 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:

  1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated.

 

  1. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

  1. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

  1. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

  1. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

  1. 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.

 

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).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

            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).

Evidence Provides Substantial and Persuasive Evidence to Establish Value

The evidence in the record allowed the Hearing Office to establish the true market value of the residential portion of the subject property.  Complainant offered into evidence an appraisal report.  Complainant’s appraisal utilized three (3) comparable properties.  No adjustments were made for variances in acreage of the building sites between the subject property and the comparables.

The Hearing Officer found comparable #1 to be the most like the subject property.  Complainant’s appraiser opined an adjusted sales price of $63,855 for comparable #1 as of January 1, 2015.  The subject properties building site is 1+ acre.  Comparable #1 has a building site of approximately .12856 acres (5,600 square feet).  Respondent’s presented evidence that a building sites value is $4,000/acre.  Complainant presented evidence that a building sites value is $3,500/acre.  At $3,500 per acre, the value between the subject property site acreage and the acreage of the building site of Comparable #1 equals $3,050.  Such amount should be added to the value of Comparable #1.

Complainant’s appraiser also made a downward adjustment of $4,000 to Comparable #1 for condition.  This was done despite the fact that he characterized the condition of both the subject property and Comparable #1 as good.  His explanation for such adjustment was that Comparable #1 is new.  The Hearing Officer is not persuaded that this was a proper, market-based adjustment.  Consequently, such value should be added back to the value of Comparable #1.  By adding the $3,050 acreage adjustment and $4,000 condition adjustment to the adjusted sales price of Comparable #1, a new adjusted sales price of $70,935 is reached.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Mercer County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at $13,475 residential value.  The agricultural assessed valuation of $2,995 was not appealed and therefore such valuation is not changed..

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 Mercer 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 this 21st day of December, 2015.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

John J. Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on December 21, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Order

 

Louis Collobert, Complainant, linluco@grm.net

Diana Blunk, Assessor, assessor@grm.net

Collector

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

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

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax