Lujun Wang & Xiaolong Qui v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

LIJUN WANG & XIAOLONG QIU,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	) ) )	Appeal No. 15-13388 Appeal No. 15-13389 Appeal No. 15-13390
	) ) ) ) ) ) ) )	Appeal No. 15-13391 Appeal No. 15-13392 Appeal No. 15-13394 Appeal No. 15-13398
JAKE ZIMMERMAN,   ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 HOLDING

 

The decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) regarding the above referenced appeals[1] are AFFIRMED.  Complainants Lijun Wang and Xiaolong Qiu (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE in each of these cases.

Complainants appeared pro se.

Respondent Jake Zimmerman, St. Louis County Assessor, (Respondent) appeared by Steven Robson, Assistant County Counselor.

Cases heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann.

ISSUE

Complainants appealed on the grounds of overvaluation.[2]  The Commission takes these appeals to determine the TMV of the subject property 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.

SUMMARY

The relevant identification information, true market values (TMV) set by Respondent and by the BOE, and the TMV proposed by Complainants are as follows:

Appeal No.	Parcel Locator No.	Address	TMV set by Respondent	TMV set by BOE	TMV proposed by Complainants
15-13388	16K120952	8369 Archer University City, MO	$40,000	$40,000	$30,000
15-13389	17J520415	1125 Watts University City, MO	$60,000	$60,000	$45,000
15-13390	16K330311	7855 Birchmont Dr., St. Louis, MO	$52,400	$52,400	$33,000
15-13391	13K311135	3663 Chaney St. John, MO	$57,000	$57,000	$40,000
15-13392	13K220495	8661 North St. John, MO	$57,000	$57,000	$40,000
15-13394	16K120893	8357 Archer University City, MO	$38,000	$38,000	$28,000
15-13398	16K211533	8242 Appleton University City, MO	$34,800	$34,800	$28,000

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the BOE.
2. Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at evidentiary hearings, which were held on July 13, 2016, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
3. Identification of Subject Properties. The subject properties are identified and described in the table, above.  (Complaints in each appeal; Exhibit 1 in each appeal)
4. Description of Subject Properties. Each of the subject properties is a single family home.  (Exhibit A in each appeal)
5. Assessment. Respondent set a true market value (TMV) on the subject properties as described in the table, above.
6. Board of Equalization. The BOE sustained Respondent’s TMV of the subject properties as described in the table, above.
7. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainants testified in their own behalf.  Complainants testified concerning the dates they had purchased each of the subject properties; the purchase prices they had paid for each of the subject properties; whether they had made improvements to the subject properties between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2015; and their opinion of the TMV of each of the subject properties as described in the table, above.  For each of the subject properties, Complainants offered as evidence an email they had written (Exhibit A in each appeal), which stated, generally, the assessed values of the subject properties; the assessed values of neighboring properties; and the percentage increase in the subject properties assessed values from 2014 to 2015.  Respondent did not object to Complainants’ evidence, which was received into the record.
8. Respondent’s Evidence. In each of these appeals, Respondent offered as evidence the Notice of Decision of the BOE, which had sustained Respondent’s valuation of each of the subject properties (labeled Exhibit 1 in each appeal).

Complainants did not object to Respondent’s evidence, which was received into the record.

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, 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.

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 hearing, the Hearing Officer inquired of Complainants.

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 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).

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).

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 appeals, 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, Inc., 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).

Discussion

Although Complainants presented evidence to support their opinion of the TMV of the subject properties, that evidence 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 properties on January 1, 2015, should be the values proposed by Complainants.

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’ opinion of TMV of the subject properties was not supported by any of the three recognized approaches to value. Complainants presented Exhibit A in each appeal, which was an email containing assessed values of the subject properties and some comparable properties. Complainants testified that they had not had any appraisals of the subject properties performed within the three years prior to the evidentiary hearing. Although Complainants presented Exhibit A and testified concerning the assessed values of allegedly similar homes located in the same neighborhoods as each of the subject properties, Complainants did not present any market-based data showing specific similarities and differences between the subject properties and the comparable properties or the value of those similarities and differences.

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 testified that the values for the comparables they had presented were not sale prices but were the assessed values assigned to the comparables, which they had obtained from public information on the Assessor’s website.

Given that Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s valuation was correct, the Senior Hearing Officer finds it reasonable to find and conclude that the TMV of the subject properties on January 1, 2015, set by the BOE should be affirmed.

ORDER

The assessed valuations for the subject properties as determined by the BOE for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED. The assessed values for the subject properties for tax years 2015 and 2016 are set as follows:

Appeal No.	Parcel Locator No.	Address	TMV set by BOE	Assessed Value 2015-2016
15-13388	16K120952	8369 Archer University City, MO	$40,000	$7,600
15-13389	17J520415	1125 Watts University City, MO	$60,000	$11,400
15-13390	16K330311	7855 Birchmont Dr., St. Louis, MO	$52,400	$9,950
15-13391	13K311135	3663 Chaney St. John, MO	$57,000	$10,830
15-13392	13K220495	8661 North St. John, MO	$57,000	$10,830
15-13394	16K120893	8357 Archer University City, MO	$38,000	$7,220
15-13398	16K211533	8242 Appleton University City, MO	$34,800	$6,610

 

Complainants 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. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432 RSMo 2000.

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 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 2000, as amended.

Any Finding of Fact that is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision that is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 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 23rd day of August, 2016 to:

 

Lijun Wang & Xiaolong Qiu, Complainants, 1029 Dougherty Lake Estates Dr., Kirkwood, MO 63122 wanglijun88@hotmail.com

Steven Robson, Attorney for Respondent, srobson@stlouisco.com

Jake Zimmerman, Assessor/Respondent, rkoch@stlouisco.com

St. Louis County Collector’s Office, mdevore@stlouisco.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

[1] All of the above referenced appeals have been consolidated into a single Decision and Order for efficiency in administration and legal analysis.

[2] In the complaints filed for each of the appeals, Complainants also checked the box “Discrimination” as a ground for the appeals.  However, no evidence of discrimination was presented at the Evidentiary Hearings.