Lutheran Senior Services v. Estes (Cole)

State Tax Commission Of Missouri

 

LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.)Appeal Numbers 09-52000

)09-52001

CHRISTOPHER ESTES, ASSESSOR,)09-52002

COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that they are entitled to a partial exemption for that portion of the facility (Sarah’s Place) that is primarily and inherently used for charitable purposes and its use is beneficial to society.Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the entire subject properties are primarily and inherently used for charitable purposes and that its use is beneficial to society in addition to those directly served by the facility.

ISSUE

 

The primary issue before this hearing officer is whether Complainant’s operations of Heisinger Bluffs and St. Joseph’s Home constitute a charitable operation and use.

SUMMARY

 

Complainant appealed the taxation of Heisinger Bluffs and St. Joseph’s Home in Jefferson City, Missouri and alleged entitlement to an exemption.Complainant also appealed the valuation of the property, the true value of the property as of January 1, 2009.

The parties agreed to bifurcate the issues of exemption and valuation.An evidentiary hearing on the issue of exemption was held on January 13, 2011, in the Cole County Courthouse and was submitted for a decision on issue of exemption. The Complainant filed their brief on April 27, 2011; Respondent filed their brief on May 26, 2011; Complainant filed a reply on

June 14, 2011.

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

Complainant submitted the following documents and written direct testimony as evidence in this appeal:

Written Direct Testimony of Paul J. Ogier for 09-52001

Written Direct Testimony of Paul J. Ogier for 09-52000 and 09-520002

Exhibits for 09-52000 and 09-52002

Exhibit	Description
Complainant’s Exhibit A	Computer Disk
Complainant’s Exhibit B	Computer Disk
Complainant’s Exhibit C	Warranty Deed dated 10-12-1976
Complainant’s Exhibit D	Quit Claim Deed dated 10-29-1982
Complainant’s Exhibit E	Trustee General Warranty Deed dated 12-28-2001
Complainant’s Exhibit F	Certificate of Good Standing dated 5-27-2010
Complainant’s Exhibit G	Certificate of Corporate Records dated 6-1-2010, Decree of Pro Forma Corporation dated 8-5-1971, Report of Amicus Curiae dated 7-29-1971, Articles of Agreement dated 7-29-1971, Petition for Pro Forma Decree dated 7-30-1971, Decree of Pro Forma Corporation dated 8-5-1971
Complainant’s Exhibit H	Certificate of Corporate Records dated 6-1-2010, Decree Amending Articles of Pro Forma Corporation dated 1-31-71, Petition for Order Amending Articles dated 2-2-72, Amended Articles of Agreement dated 1-27-72
Complainant’s Exhibit I	Agreement of Affiliation between Cole County Lutheran Home and Lutheran Senior Services, dated 1-1-2002
Complainant’s Exhibit J	Bylaws of Cole County Lutheran Home Association dated 2001
Complainant’s Exhibit K	Internal Revenue Service exemption dated 1980
Complainant’s Exhibit L	State of Missouri sales tax exemption dated 2002
Complainant’s Exhibit M	Certificate of Good Standing dated 5-27-2010

 

Complainant’s Exhibit N	Corporate Records: Articles of Merger for Nonprofit Corporation dated 6-19-98, Lutheran Senior Services Bylaws, Order Approving the Merger dated 5-5-98, Petition for Approval of the Merger dated 4-30-98, Lutheran Senior Services Bylaws
Complainant’s Exhibit O	Corporate Records: Incorporation Order dated 1-11-1900
Complainant’s Exhibit P	Corporate Records: Amended Constitution dated 9-22-1913
Complainant’s Exhibit Q	Corporate Records: Amendment of Charter dated 2-26-1985, Petition
Complainant’s Exhibit R	Amended and Restated Bylaws of Lutheran Senior Services dated 3-20-2007
Complainant’s Exhibit S	IRS 501(c) (3) dated 10-12-07
Complainant’s Exhibit T	Treasury Department exemption 8-7-1946
Complainant’s Exhibit U	State of Missouri Limited Exemption from Sales Tax dated 2-19-2008
Complainant’s Exhibit V	Assisted Living License dated 5-1-2009
Complainant’s Exhibit W	Residential Care License dated 5-1-2009
Complainant’s Exhibit X	Skilled Nursing Facility License dated 5-1-2009
Complainant’s Exhibit Y	Lutheran Senior Services Missouri Independent Living Residency Agreement form
Complainant’s Exhibit Z	Lutheran Senior Services Missouri Residential Care Agreement
Complainant’s Exhibit AA	Lutheran Senior Services Missouri Assisted Living Memory Agreement
Complainant’s Exhibit BB	Admissions Agreement Heisinger Bluffs
Complainant’s Exhibit CC	US News & World Report – Respondent objected to the Exhibit, objection was sustained
Complainant’s Exhibit DD	Heisinger Bluffs Actual Operating Results 2003-2009;
Complainant’s Exhibit EE	Heisinger Hope Foundation Actual Operating Results
Complainant’s Exhibit FF	Heisinger Bluffs Operating Budgets 2004 to 2010
Complainant’s Exhibit GG	Benevolent Care 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit HH	Residential Care Apartments, Sara’s Place and River View rates and deposit
Complainant’s Exhibit II	Senior Living Apartments, Entrance Fee Option
Complainant’s Exhibit JJ	Memory Care Assisted Living Room Rates
Complainant’s Exhibit KK	Care Center Daily Rates
Complainant’s Exhibit LL	Senior Living Apartment Amenities & Services
Complainant’s Exhibit MM	Residential Care Apartments Amenities & Services
Complainant’s Exhibit NN	Memory Care Assisted Living Amenities & Services
Complainant’s Exhibit OO	Care Center Amenities & Services
Complainant’s Exhibit PP	Independent Living Activities 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit QQ	Activities 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit RR	Activities 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit SS	Health Care Activity Calendar 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit TT	Pledge Form & Brochure
Complainant’s Exhibit UU	Admissions Screening for LSS Resident
Complainant’s Exhibit VV	Heisinger Bluffs Resident Handbook for Independent Living November 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit WW	Heisinger Bluffs Resident Handbook for Sara’s Place and Riverview Residential Care
Complainant’s Exhibit XX	Heisinger Bluffs Resident Handbook for Memory Care Neighborhood
Complainant’s Exhibit YY	Heisinger Bluffs Resident Handbook for the Care Center
Complainant’s Exhibit ZZ	Benevolent Care Policy
Complainant’s Exhibit AAA	Heisinger Bluffs Care Center Resident Census Report January 2009
Complainant’s Exhibit BBB	Aerial Photo
Complainant’s Exhibit CCC	Aerial Photo
Complainant’s Exhibit DDD	Diagram
Complainant’s Exhibit EEE	Diagram
Complainant’s Exhibit FFF	Diagram of entire first part of Heisinger
Complainant’s Exhibit GGG	Diagram
Complainant’s Exhibit HHH	Heisinger Bluffs Income Statements 2005 – 2008
Complainant’s Exhibit III	Heisinger Bluffs including St. Joseph Income Statements 2005-2008
Complainant’s Exhibit JJJ	Respondent’s Answers to Production of Documents
Complainant’s Exhibit KKK	Respondent’s Answers to Interrogatories

 

Exhibits 09-52001

 

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE

Respondent submitted the following documents and written direct testimony as evidence in this appeal for cases:

Written Direct Testimony of Paul J. Ogier

Exhibits for 09-52000 and 09-52002

 

 

 

Exhibits 09-52001

 

Respondent’s Exhibits 1 – 34 are identical to Exhibits 1-34 in appeal 09-52000.

 

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  The properties subject to this appeal[1] include:

 

2.The subject properties consists of three parcels improved with buildings operating as retirement facilities under the names of Heisinger Bluffs and St. Joseph’s Home.

3.St. Joseph’s Home and Heisinger Bluffs are owned and operated by Cole County Lutheran Home Association and Lutheran Senior Services[2] (hereafter “Complainant”). Complainant is organized as a not-for-profit corporation with the Missouri Secretary of State.[3]Complainant “exist[s] and operate[s] exclusively for religious and charitable purposes, and in furtherance, but not in limitation, of such purposes, [t]o establish, maintain and provide any and all manner of health care and health related services for, and otherwise to administer to the wants and needs of, the sick, elderly, inform, retarded, mentally ill….”[4]Complainant is exempt from federal income taxes.[5] No part of Complainant’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any individual or corporation.

4.Heisinger Bluffs

a.Heisinger Bluffs is a retirement facility that was constructed in several phases.It includes the original mansion from the property with several additions.It is a multi-story building with parking garage facilities and other amenities.The facility may accommodate up to 210 residents.

b.It has 4 levels of care: independent living, residential care, memory care and skilled nursing.

c.Approximately one half of the facility is dedicated to independent living.The remaining area is assisted/residential and skilled care. The building has common areas available to all residents.

d.There are 65 independent living apartments.There are 3 three bedroom units; there are 62 one or two bedroom units.The apartments have decks or patios, individually controlled heating and air conditioning, and fully equipped kitchens.

e.There are 62 units of residential or assisted living.Those units are known as Sarah’s Place and Riverview.

f.There are 59 units of skilled nursing.Those units are known as Lutheran Home or The Care Center.

g.There are 24 units of assisted living memory care.

5.St. Joseph’s Home

a.It was purchased in 2005.In 2005, there were 80 residents.The number of residents was allowed to decrease to permit updates and renovations.On January 1, 2009, there were 26 residents.

b.It is an intermediate care facility providing skilled nursing.

c.It has 100 units.

6.Admission

a.Applicants go through a financial and health assessment.

b.The financial assessment determines if the applicant will be able to afford the accommodations and services provided by the Complainant.The factors used in the assessment include life expectancy, projected time when applicant may need skilled nursing, the average cost of resident, the applicant’s assets and annual income, and the existence of long-term care insurance.

c.If the financial screening projects the applicant will be able to pay for their potential continuum of care, the applicant is approved for admission.If the financial screening projects that the applicant will not be able to pay for their potential continuum of care, other options are explored.The options include whether less expensive units are available, reviewing insurance and other assets, or whether another person would serve as guarantor.

d.One applicant of St. Joseph was denied based upon inability to pay.

e.It is possible that applicants “pre-screen” themselves; that is, they decide not to submit an application after they inquire about the rates.

7.Admission Agreement

a.Complainant may increase monthly fees, terminate the lease and charge 10% for late payment.

b.Applicants pay a $2000-$3000 deposit.The deposit is applied to their entrance or monthly fees if admitted.

8.Residents of independent living apartments have two options: entrance fee or rental option.

a.The entrance fee option requires the resident pay a one-time entrance fee and a smaller monthly rental fee.The entrance fee ranges from $50, 000 to $239,000 depending on the unit.

b.The entrance fee option provides for a refund of the entrance fee of 50% or 95%.Under the 50% option, residents will be refunded a portion of his or her entrance fee over a four-year period starting at 90%.If the residence is vacated after four years, the resident will be refunded 50% of their fee.Under the 95% option, a resident will be refunded 95 % of their fee upon vacating.

c.Monthly fees range from $597 to $1,676 depending on the type of unit and entrance fee.

d.The rental option does not require upfront entrance payment, but does require a higher monthly fee.Monthly fees range from $1,000 to $2986 depending on the unit.

9.Residents of Sarah’s Place, residential care, pay monthly fees of $1,915 to $3,768 depending on the type of unit.It is the most affordable.They may admit up to 38 residents.Twenty-four of those units may be available to applicants that cannot afford the monthly fees of $1,915 to $3,768.[6]Complainant has admitted six individuals without conducting the financial screening.

10.Residents of Riverview pay monthly fees of $3,319 to $4,482 depending on the unit.

11.Monthly fees for memory care range from $3,625 to $4,432.

12.Skilled nursing fees are paid on a daily rate ranging from $139 – $168; there is a separate Medicare rate of $270.

13.Fees include one evening meal for independent living, 3 meals for residential and memory care, housekeeping, security, utilities, fitness room, lounges, library, art studio, craft area, media room, and workshop.

14.There are additional fees for additional meals, barber and beauty services and garage parking.

15.Benevolent Care may be available to residents.

a.The resident’s resources must be exhausted;

b.Residents must not transfer assets to diminish their ability to pay;

c.Residents must seek governmental financial assistance;

d.Residents must cooperate in moving to more economical unit;

e.Complainant may deny benevolent care;

f.Benevolent care is the difference between the applicable standard monthly room rate and the monthly amount received from Medicaid.Medicaid is only available in the skilled nursing unit – it is not available for independent living, Sarah’s Place or Riverview;

g.Benevolent care includes any monthly service fee that a resident of residential care is unable to pay;

h.An individual may receive up to $500 of benevolent are assistance within 12 month period; [7]

i.Complainant collects donations for benevolent care.[8]

 

16.Out of the 59 units of skilled nursing at Heisinger Bluffs, four are Medicaid certified.On January 1, 2009, two of the units were occupied.

17.Complainant’s financial information for Heisinger Bluffs includes:

	2007	2008	2009
Revenue	$8,000,000	$8,800,000	$9,000,000
Losses	$697,701	$189,581	$367,052
%	8.7%	2.15%	4.08%
Direct Benevolent Care		$50,596
%		.57%
Difference between fees and Medicaid reimbursement		$31,000
Amt absorbed by LSS		$19,596
# of residents receiving benevolent care		2 skilled nursing 7 residential
# of residents pay $0			0

 

18.Complainant’s financial information for St. Joseph includes:

	2007	2008	2009
Revenue	$1,300,000	$1,101,000	$1,406,000
Losses	$180,976	$245,250	$193,890
%	13.9%	22.2%	13.7%

 

Complainant has honored the rates being paid when they acquired St. Joseph’s Home; the rates have increased by the same percentage that all other rates have increased.The rates offered

are below market.The amount of below-market rates as of January 1, 2009, was $58,962 or 4.2% of its operating revenue.

19.In 2008, the Complainant’s top five officers had a combined income of over $1 million and bonuses of $100,000 – $160,000 were paid.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization.

Burden of Proof

Although a taxing statute is construed strictly against the state, an exemption statute is strictly construed against the one claiming the exemption.[9]“The law disfavors claims for exemption from taxation.The substantial burden of establishing the property falls within the exempted class is on the person claiming exemptions under the referenced constitutional and statutory provisions.Accordingly, in order to prevail, Complainant must demonstrate by substantial and persuasive evidence, that it is entitled to an exemption.

Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, i.e., evidence favoring facts which are such that reasonable men may differ as to whether it established them, and from which the Commission can reasonably decide an appeal on the factual issues.[10]

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.[11]

Statutory Exemptions

Properties which can be exempted from taxation are set out within our Constitution and the statutes enacted to enforce that Constitution, to wit:

“ . . .all property, real and personal, not held for private or corporate profit and used exclusively for religious worship, for schools and colleges, for purposes purely charitable, . . .may be exempt from taxation by general law but any such law may provide for approximate restitution to the respective political subdivisions of revenues lost by reason of the exemption.All laws exempting from taxation property other than the property enumerated in this article, shall be void.”[12]

 

In support of this Constitutional provision, the Legislature has enacted Section 137.110, RSMo, which provides in relevant part:

The following property shall be exempt from taxation:

 

(5) All property, real and personal, actually and regularly used exclusively for religious worship, for schools and colleges, or for purposes purely charitable and not held for private or corporate profit, except that the exemption herein granted does not include real property not actually used or occupied for the purpose of the organization but held or used as investment even though the income or rentals received therefrom is used wholly for religious, education or charitable purposes;

 

Charitable Use Exemption

In order for a property to be exempt from taxation for state, county or local purposes, the following tests must be met:[13]

A.The property must be actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose.“Charity” is therein defined as “. . .a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies of disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining the public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.”[14]

 

B.The property must be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis.The property “must be dedicated unconditionally to the charitable activity in such a way that there will be no profit, presently or prospectively, to individuals or corporations.Any gain achieved in use of the building must be devoted to achievement of the charitable objectives of the project.”

 

C.The dominant use of the property must be for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons and must directly or indirectly benefit society generally.“It is required that there be the element of direct or indirect benefit to society in addition to and as a result of the benefit conferred on the persons directly served by the humanitarian activity”.

 

The subject properties are owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis.The issue in this case is whether the property is actually used for a charitable purpose and whether it benefits and indefinite number of persons and society.

DECISION

Exemption law requires that the primary and inherent use of the property be for a charitable objective.Charity is definedas “. . .a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies of disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining the public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.”[15]

Exemption law further requires “…that there be the element of direct or indirect benefit to society in addition to and as a result of the benefit conferred on the persons directly served by the humanitarian activity.”[16]Under this analysis, the court requires us to go further and consider whether the rendering of the charitable activity inherently confers a benefit to society in general.Retirement homes rise to a charitable purpose if the home is available to an “indefinite number of persons” – if it is available to the rich and the poor alike.[17] The home may accept payments from those able to pay and their income may exceed their expenses.[18]However, a retirement home seeking exemption status cannot receive pay patients to such an extent as will exhaust its accommodations and prevent its receiving and extending service to the usual and ordinary number of indigent residents applying for admission.[19]A facility must be available to all who need and apply for it and must not appear to place obstacles of any character in the way of those who need and would avail themselves of the charitable benefits.

The test of charitable endeavor was developed in Franciscan Tertiary Province of Missouri.The case involved an apartment complex of one-room efficiencies and one-bedroom apartments.The residents paid less than half of the self-sustaining costs.There was also a rent subsidy program available for anyone with a monthly income less than four times their monthly rental expense.Franciscan passed a resolution that no one would be evicted for inability to pay rent and they also resolved to provide food, clothing, or cost of medical treatment if the resident was unable to pay for those expenses.The Court granted their exemption as the income levels of the residents were within the guidelines for government housing and as such the applicant’s activity reduced the likelihood that its residents would be public charges.

In Evangelical Retirement Homes of Greater St. Louis, the home was denied a property tax exempt status. The applicants to Evangelical paid an admission fee.They paid a monthly fee, which included one meal per day; the residents paid for additional meals and expenses.The policy of the home was not to terminate a residency for financial reasons alone.The determination of waiver of any monthly fees was at the discretion of the home.The home operated at net cost.

The Court found that the provision of services to the elderly at cost or less is not necessarily a charitable activity.A charitable activity is one that benefits an indefinite number or persons or the public; it is a charitable activity if it is available to both the rich and poor.The admission fee and monthly fees were an obstacle for admission. Evangelical was denied an exemption.

Cape Retirement Community[20] was also denied exemption status.It operated on a non-profit basis.Applicants were required to undergo financial screening.The financial screening would attempt to determine if the applicant’s financial resources would meet the costs of the continuum of care.Cape Retirement agreed to continue to provide services even if the resident became insolvent.Cape had in fact assumed obligations of those that did not have sufficient resources.An admission fee and monthly fees were paid by the residents.The monthly fee, subject to increases of less than 10% per year, included one meal per day.Other expenses and services were paid for by the residence.

The Court denied Cape Retirement Community a tax exemption due to the financial screening.The application process, according to the Court, screened out low income elderly and therefore systematically denied services to those who needed and could not afford them.Cape’s agreement to retain a resident even if the resident became insolvent did not create a charitable entity.The court found that it did not operate exclusively for charitable purposes and therefore was not entitled to an exemption.

Lutheran Senior Services, likewise, does not operate exclusively for charitable purposes and most of their property is not entitled to an exemption.Their facility, other than Sarah’s Place, is not available to all who need it and appears to place obstacles in the way of those who need and would avail themselves of the charitable benefits.

The obstacles in place include the admission process.Complainant engages in financial screening as part of their admission process.[21]The applicant needs to score at least a “1” on the screening.A score of “1” indicates that the applicant’s resources should be able to pay for their continuum of care. If the applicant does not score at least a “1”, meaning an applicant may not be able to pay for his continuum of care, Complainant will look to other options such as whether others will serve as a guarantor or if there is a less expensive option for care.[22]

Complainant argues that they are charitable as once an applicant is accepted and contract drawn, they may continue to provide all services if the resident later becomes insolvent or otherwise unable to pay. However, Complainant’s terms of the residency agreement include: increase of fees upon 30 day notice, Complainant’s ability to terminate upon nonpayment, and 10% late payment fees.[23]

The fees and financial commitments at Lutheran Senior Services are another obstacle. Applicants submit a deposit of $2000 – $3000 with their application. Entrance fees can range from $50,000 to $239,500.[24]Monthly fees range from $597 to $4,482 per month.[25]Daily room rates for skilled nursing range from $139 – $270.

Although Complainant argues that some of their residents are low income, they admit that there might be prospective applicants that “self screen” and do not make a formal application due to the fees.[26]Further, Complainant provided no income data on residents so it is unknown if they have low income applicants or residents.Complainant provided no evidence as to the usual and ordinary number of indigent residents in the area.Complainant provided no evidence as to market rates but argues that their rates are below market. They provided no evidence as to typical

or market costs but argue, without evidence as to whether their costs are excessive, that their rates do not cover their expenses.

Complainant argues that they provide benevolence to residence.However, their policy states that benevolence is limited to $500[27] and that Complainant reserves the right to deny benevolent care.

Complainant’s facility is not available to all who need it and appears to place obstacles in the way of those who need and would avail themselves of the charitable benefits as evidenced by their screening, fees, and financial requirements.“The public nature of charity is diminished when it systematically denied to those who need and can least afford the service.”The same must be available to both rich and poor.Where a sum of money was required for admittance and financial requirements severely limit meaningful access to the home, the home cannot be considered charitable.

Sarah’s Place

In Village North, Inc v. State Tax Commission of Missouri[28], the Court found that the Complainant was entitled to the partial exemption for the percentage of its facility.The facility consisted of six buildings.Four of the buildings were 214 apartments, one building was a 60 bed skilled nursing facility and the sixth building was used for administration.Residents of the apartments were admitted after a financial screening. The residents paid an entrance fee and monthly fees.The resident received a lifetime tenancy in his apartment and unlimited care in the nursing facility.

Village North would admit, without financial screening, to the skilled nursing facility.Approximately one-half of the beds were available to those not previously residing in the apartments.Some of the residents were unable to pay the full cost of services.

The Court determined that an “all or nothing” rule was not appropriate and that a partial exemption for those areas meeting the Franciscan test was appropriate.

The Complainant’s are entitled to a partial exemption for the areas meeting the Franciscan test.Complainant has made available, to those who need and avail themselves to the charitable benefits of Sarah’s Place.Twenty-four of the 38 units in Sarah’s place may be available to applicants that cannot afford the monthly fees of $1,915 to $3,768.[29]Complainant has admitted six applicants without financial screening.

Conclusion

Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the entire property is primarily and inherently used for charitable purposes and that its use is beneficial to society in addition to those directly served by the facility. For the majority of the property, the Complainant required significant entrance and/or monthly fees, screened applicant’s financial position, residency agreements allowed fees to be increased, provided termination of agreement if fees were not paid, and provided a minimal number and amount of rent reductions.

Complainant does qualify for a partial exemption as to the property comprising of Sarah’s Place.Sarah’s place is available to all who need it and does not appear to place obstacles in the way of those who need and would avail themselves of the charitable benefits as evidenced by the lack of screening and financial requirements.

ORDER

Case is to proceed on the valuation as to property, excluding the property designated as Sarah’s Place.

 

The Collector of Cole County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

SO ORDERED June 23, 2011.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

 

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 23^rd day of June, 2011:Jay Levitch, 911 Washington, St. Louis, MO63101, Attorney for Complainant; John Ruth, 601 Monroe Street, Suite 301, Jefferson City, MO65102, Attorney for Respondent; Christopher Estes, Assessor, 210 Adams Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101; Marvin Register, Clerk, Cole County Courthouse Annex, Room 201, Jefferson City, MO 65101; Larry Vincent, Collector, Cole County Courthouse Annex, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

 

_______________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator