STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|M-IV LLC STL PLACE LLC,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-20165|
|Parcel/Locator No. 10100-00-0040-0|
|STEPHEN CONWAY, ASSESSOR,||)|
|ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI,
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED. M-IV LLC St. Louis Place LLC (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainant appeared by counsel Kevin Smith.
Stephen Conway, Assessor, St. Louis City, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared in person and by counsel Megan Bruyns.
Case heard and decided by Maureen Monaghan, Chief Counsel (Hearing Officer).
Respondent set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $17,552,500, as commercial property, as of January 1, 2017. Complainant appealed to the BOE. On August 2, 2017, the BOE valued the subject property at $14,800,000. Complainant appealed to the State Tax Commission (STC) on the ground of overvaluation. STC takes this appeal to determine the TVM for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant opined that the TVM of the subject property was $13,070,000 as of January 1, 2017. To support the opinion of value, Complainant requested admission of the following exhibits:
|Exhibit A||Appraisal Report||Admitted|
|Exhibit B||Realty Rate||Admitted|
|Exhibit C||Rent Roll as of March 1, 2018||Excluded|
|Exhibit D||Tenant Improvements October 2017||Not Offered|
|Exhibit E||Income Approach||Not Offered|
Complainant presented the testimony of Certified General Appraiser John Hottle (Hottle). Hottle has been an appraiser for over forty years. He has testified before the Missouri State Tax Commission as well as state and federal courts as an expert witness. Hottle is member of Appraisal Institute and certified to appraise properties in six other states.
Hottle inspected the property on January 9, 2018 for his retrospective valuation of January 1, 2017. The property is a 21-story office/retail building built in 1983 and partially renovated in 1990. It is located on the east side of North Broadway between Olive and Pine Streets and considered to be in the Central Business District.
The property has 337,088 rentable square feet of which 10,914 is retail space. It has 312 parking spaces in an underground garage. As of January 1, 2017, subject property was 61% occupied with twelve tenants.
Complainant purchased the property on August 18, 2015 for $12,750,000. At the time of purchase, the property was 63% occupied.
Hottle considered all three approaches to value. Hottle did not develop the cost approach due to the age of the building. Hottle developed the sales comparison and the income approaches. The property was valued “as stabilized” and “as-is.” The property’s vacancy rate was compared to the market and deemed to be in excess by Hottle. Because of the excess vacancy, he adjusted the stabilized value indicated by both approaches to determine the value of the property as it existed on January 1, 2017.
In developing the income approach, Hottle reviewed the property’s actual income and expenses as well as reviewed the market data. To estimate the potential gross income, he determined the most likely rental income commanded in the open market. Hottle reviewed rents within the Central Business District. The rates were reviewed for office leases of over 10,000 square feet and for leases under 10,000 square feet. The rents for larger spaces ranged from a minimum of $12 to a maximum of $17.27 per square foot. The rent for smaller spaces ranged from $12.50 to a maximum of $17.50 per square foot. Hottle also reviewed retail space lease rates. He calculated a range of rates of $13.99 to $18.40 per square foot. Using the lease rates, Hottle estimated a potential gross income of $5,447,198. Hottle reviewed vacancy and collection loss and expenses for the market and the subject’s actual. Reviewing sources such as CoStar, 4th quarter 2016, the vacancy for the Central Business District Submarket was 10%; the regional average was 7.5%. Hottle used the submarket rate, 10%, for his vacancy rate. He used the actual expenses of the subject property. The resulting net operating income was $3,139,957.
Hottle then developed a capitalization rate to estimate the value of the subject property. Capitalization rates are developed utilizing comparable sales, investor surveys, and the buildup method. Hottle reviewed five sales that showed capitalization rates from 7.8% to 11.5% with an average of 9.25%. Hottle selected a capitalization rate of 10% with an effective tax rate of 3.4%, which included a Community Improvement District (CID) fee. The indication of value under the income approach was $23,430,000 for the property as stabilized.
Hottle also developed the sales comparison approach. He reviewed sales in the subject’s market. He selected three sales that occurred from August 19, 2015 to October 28, 2015. Hottle made adjustments for property rights, size, age/condition, and class. The indication of value was $23,700,000 as stabilized.
The indication of value under both the income and sales comparison approaches was adjusted to account for the market’s reaction to the high vacancy of the subject property. Hottle assumed it would take five years to attain market occupancy. Based upon his assumptions, including the 5 year lease up assumption, Hottle calculated an adjustment to his as stabilized values. Hottle’s adjustments were calculated using total square foot of leasable space minus occupied square footage. In other words, he used the entire vacant square footage in calculating his adjustments such as the tenant improvements cost. Hottle estimated the tenant improvements cost at $40 per square foot explaining that he was told that had been the past cost. Hottle made negative adjustments for entrepreneurial incentive and leasing commissions. He also determined the present value of vacancy income shortfall for a resulting indication of value as the property existed as of January 1, 2017 of $13,070,000.
Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent opined that the TVM of the subject property was $19,000,000 as of January 1, 2017. To support the opinion of value, Respondent offered the following exhibits:
|Exhibit 1||Appraisal Report||Admitted|
|Exhibit 2||Issues in Comparing Capitalization Rates||Admitted|
|Exhibit 3||Valuing the Leased Fee Simple Estate||Not Offered|
The Respondent presented the testimony of Ryan Brennan (Brennan). Brennan is employed with the Assessor’s Office of the City of St. Louis. He has been employed with them since 2009.
Brennan inspected the exterior of the property as part of his appraisal. He utilized photographs in other appraisal reports to review the interior of the property.
Brennan considered all three approaches to value. He did not develop the cost approach due to the age of the building. He developed the sales comparison and the income approaches. The property was valued “as stabilized” and “as-is.” The property’s vacancy rate was compared to the market and deemed to be in excess by Brennan therefore he adjusted the stabilized value to determine the value of the property as it existed on January 1, 2017.
In developing the income approach, Brennan reviewed the property’s actual income and expenses as well as reviewed the market data. To estimate the potential gross income, he determined the most likely rental income commanded in the open market. Brennan reviewed seven leases for buildings with leased spaces ranging from 2,162 to 156,418 square feet. The range of rates was from $14.00 to $22.50 per square foot. The subject’s rent roll averaged $16.75 per square foot. Brennan used $16.75 per square foot for office space, $20.00 per square foot for retail space and $8.50 per square foot for storage space. The estimated potential gross income was calculated at $5,626,156.
Brennan reviewed vacancy and collection loss and expenses for the market and the subject’s actual. The subject is 39% vacant. Vacancy rates in the downtown area were 10.3% to 16.4%. Brennan used a vacancy and collection rate of 15%. He reviewed the actual expenses of the subject property and looked at office expense surveys. Brennan determined to use the market median expense ratio of comparable properties of 45.4%. The resulting net operating income was $2,789,516.
Brennan then developed a capitalization rate to estimate the value of the subject property. He utilized the mortgage/equity technique and reviewed the market. Brennan utilized a rate of 12.17%. The rate included a capitalization rate and an effective tax rate without including CID. The CID charge was included in the expenses. The indication of value is $22,921,249.
Brennan also developed the sales comparison approach. He reviewed sales in the subject’s market. He selected five sales that occurred from October 2014 to April 2017. Brennan made adjustments for location, size, parking, and economic characteristics. The indication of value was $23,259,072.
The indications of value were adjusted to account for the market’s reaction to the high vacancy. Brennan estimated it would take three years to lease up the subject property to the market vacancy rate. Adjustments were made for rent loss ($1,108,729), tenant improvement costs ($2,427,034) and leasing commissions ($338,773) for a resulting indication of value as the property existed as of January 1, 2017 of $19,000,000.
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 on March 13, 2018, at the St. Louis City Government Building.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 0100-00-0040-0. It is further identified as 200 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri. (Complaint)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of .68 acres (29,569 square feet) of land improved by an office building constructed in 1983. The property underwent partial renovation in 1990 and the lobby was renovated in 2016.
The building’s gross square footage is 359,065; the rentable square-footage is 337,088 of which 10,914 square feet is retail space. Retail space ranges from 1,318 to 4,087 square feet. Retail space is on the main level and offices are above. The building has 312 parking spaces. The building is sprinklered and serviced with elevators. It is 61% occupied by multiple tenants.
The property was purchased on August 18, 2015 for $12,750,000. The property’s occupancy was 63% at the time of the sale.
- Assessment of the Property Respondent determined a TVM of $17,552,500, as commercial property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE determined a TVM for the subject property of $14,800,000.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE (TVM of $14,800,000) and establish TVM of $13,070,000. Repondent did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE (TVM of $14,800,000) and establish TVM of $19,000,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC 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 Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, and correcting any assessment that 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.
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.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
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 STC 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).
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.
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).
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).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.
“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id.
Comparable Sale Approach
“The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties.” Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
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:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- 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.
Both appraisers developed the sales comparison approach. Hottle reviewed three sales and Brennan reviewed five sales. Two of the sales properties used by the appraisers were the same. The appraisers’ estimated dollar per square foot was very close. However, given the few number of sales used and that the likelihood the purchaser of subject property would be utilizing the property for income purposes, the income approach was given more weight by the appraisers.
The Supreme Court of Missouri has held that evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time. The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993)
The property’s transaction history includes a sale in 2004 for $30,150,000 and a sale in August 2015 for $12,750,000. Neither appraiser placed weight on either of the sales. The sale in 2004 was too remote in time. The sale in 2015 was a foreclosure related sale and therefore not considered an arm’s length transaction.
The income approach determines value by estimating the present worth of what an owner will likely receive in the future as income from the property. The income approach is based on an evaluation of what a willing buyer would pay to realize the income stream that could be obtained from the property when devoted to its highest and best use.
When applying the income approach to valuing income producing property for ad valorem tax purposes, it is not proper to consider income derived from the business and personal property; only income derived from the land and improvements should be considered. This approach is most appropriate in valuing investment-type properties and is reliable when rental income, operating expenses and capitalization rates can reasonably be estimated from existing market conditions. The basic steps in the income approach are as follows:
- Estimate potential gross income;
- Deduct for vacancy and collection;
- Add miscellaneous income to get the effective gross income;
- Determine operating income;
- Deduct operating expenses from the effective gross income to determine net operating net operating income before discount, recapture and taxes;
- Select the proper capitalization rate;
- Determine the appropriate capitalization procedure to be used;
- Capitalize the net operating income into an estimated property value.
Property Assessment Valuation, IAAO, page 204.
A review of the appraisers’ income approach shows that they utilized different capitalization rates and effective tax rates. Capitalization is the process of converting the income – anticipated lease payments – into a present value. In other words, capitalization turns the net operating income into an indication of the TVM of the property. There is an inverse relationship between the capitalization rate and the indication of value, i.e. as the capitalization rate increases, the indication of value decreases. Brennan used a capitalization rate of 9%. Hottle used a capitalization rate of 10%. Hottle’s review of property sales indicated a range of capitalization rates from 7.8% to 11.5% with an average of 9.25%. Brennan reviewed national surveys, market surveys, build up rate, and comparable sales. The national survey indicated a rate of 8.9%, with a rate of 7.1% for the St. Louis central business district. Integra, a source relied upon by appraisers, indicated a rate of 9.5%. Brennan calculated, using the band of investment methodology, a rate of 9.13%. Finally, Brennan’s review of sales provided a range of rates from 7.25% to 9.04% with an average of 8.01%.
Besides calculating a capitalization rate, appraisers also calculated an effective tax rate. An effective tax rate expresses the ratio between property value and the tax amount. Appraisers do not use property taxes as expenses since they are based upon the assessed value of the property, which is the determination to be made in an ad valorem appeal. Appraisers calculate the effective tax rate using the tax levy and assessment ratio. Hottle calculated an effective tax rate of 3.4%. His calculation of the effective tax rate included the assessment for the CID. However, a CID may not be based upon the property’s valuation as determined by the assessor. Section 67.1401 et al An area of property owners may agree to pay an amount based upon the size of their properties as is the situation for this property. Since the assessment for the CID is not based upon the valuation or assessed valuation of the property, the CID should be treated as an expense and not part of the effective tax rate. Making this one adjustment to Hottle’s income approach changes the as stabilized value to approximately $23,841,738 and the as-is to $13,482,000. If, in addition to correcting the ETR, a capitalization rate of 9.25% (the average capitalization rate) is utilized, the as-is indication of value is $25,281,457 and a stabilized indication of value of $14,921,460.
Another area of concern with the appraisal includes adjustment for determination of as-is TVM. Both appraisers adjusted their indications of value to account for the excess vacancy of the property. The appraisers made reduction in the indications of value to account for the cost of leasing-up the property. Those reductions included the cost of tenant improvements, which would be demanded by those entering into new leases for space within the subject property, leasing commissions, and the loss of income for the vacant space. Hottle made a negative adjustment to his indication of value ($23,432,514) of $10,359,997. Hottle’s calculations were made using the entirety of the vacant space (total square footage minus occupied) and not the difference between the current vacancy (49%) and the market vacancy (10-15%). The market vacancy was already considered in the initial calculation of property as stabilized.
Further Hottle’s adjustment includes lost income for the entirety of the vacant space, however, the market vacancy rate was considered and an adjustment made to the income when determining the value of the property as stablized.
A correction of any one of these items in Hottle’s appraisal increases the estimate of TVM of the subject property as-is. The estimate of value, after corrections, supports the BOE determination of TVM of $14,800,000.
Brennan’s appraisal underestimated the income of the subject and was overly optimistic as to the amount of time to lease-up the space to market levels and the cost associated with the lease-up. Brennan estimated that the property would lease to market in three years. Given the property’s history, including the negative absorption rate in the most recent months, indicates that the property may take longer to stabilize. Further, Respondent estimated tenant improvement cost at $30 per square foot. There is no explanation of the calculation of this amount whereas the Hottle cited a recent tenanat improvement cost of $63 and the owner’s report of an expense of $40 per square foot.
In addition to the tenant improvement cost not being explained by Brennan, neither is the discount rate of 11%. Brennan provides no basis for this rate, which should be based upon an expectation of a return on investment.
A correction of any one of these items in Brennan’s appraisal decreases the estimate of TVM of the subject property. The estimate of value, after corrections, supports the BOE determination of TVM of $14,800,000.
The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED at $14,800,000.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC 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 City, 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 May 18 , 2018.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 18th day of May, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.