Monarch Tree Farm LLC v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

May 23rd, 2017

State Tax Commission of Missouri

MONARCH TREE FARM, LLC	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal Number 15-10101
	)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

HOLDING

On May 23, 2017, Chief Counsel Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer), entered her Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE).

Monarch Tree Farm, LLC (Complainant) filed an Application for Review. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor of St. Louis County (Respondent) filed a Reply. Complainant filed a Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission (STC) 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 Hearing Officer and the briefs of the parties, enters its Decision. Segments of the Hearing Officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into our Decision without further reference.

DECISION

Complainant’s Points on Review

In its Application for Review, Complainant claims:

The Hearing Officer erred in her determination that the Tax Commission’s Order entered pursuant to a stipulation was not a successful appeal because this determination erroneously interpreted Section 137.345 RSMo, in that the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of said provision does not limit the application thereof to cases resolved by a fully contested trial on the merits, and such determination failed to give effect to the requirements of Section 137.016 RSMo.;
The Hearing Officer misapplied the law in her determination that Complainant’s use of the portion of the subject property devoted to storage of hardscaping materials, the administration of the nursery, and the selling of plants was not agricultural because the sale of plants, storage of material and the administration of the agricultural business are uses “customarily association with farming, agricultural and horticultural uses.;”and
The Hearing Officer erred in her determination that the portions of the subject property used for the storage of hardscaping material, administration of the nursery, and plants sales were not devoted to agricultural use, because such determination was unsupported by the evidence, and was at war with the uncontroverted evidence.

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

The BOE determined the subject property (Parcel No. 18W120077) was of mixed classification of commercial (true market value [TMV] of $148,800) and agricultural (TMV of $66,100). Complainant owns the property and rents the subject property to its related business, Prestige Landscaping. The subject property is used as a landscaping business. As part of the landscaping business, a section of the property is used to grow and care for trees, shrubs and other plants. The plants on the property are primarily used for the landscaping business although there are some “walk-in” sales of the plants. The property is also used as placement for “hardscape” materials such as blocks, rocks, and other materials used for projects such as retaining walls. One structure on the property is used as a break room for employees and to store supplies such as irrigation piping, trucks, and hold plants during cold weather. The residence like structure on the property is used as the business office.

Complainant has sought review of the assessment of the property in prior years. Complainant appealed in 1999. The STC approved a stipulation filed by the parties for an assessed valuation of $12,340 (agricultural). Complainant appealed in 2007. The BOE determined a TMV of $136,500 agricultural. Complainant appealed again in 2011. The STC approved a stipulation filed by the parties.

Analysis

We have reviewed the whole record in this case and find that the Hearing Officer did not err as Complainant alleged in its Application for Review.

Successful Appeal

Complainant argues that the Stipulation entered into for tax years 1999-2000, the BOE determination from 2007-2008, and the Stipulation for an appeal filed in 2011 are to be considered “successful appeals” as the term is used in Section 137.345 RSMo.:

In every instance where a taxpayer has appealed to the board of equalization or the state tax commission the assessment of the taxpayer’s property, real or personal, and that appeal has been successful, then in the next following and all subsequent years the basis upon which the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property shall be the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis.

Stipulations do not constitute “a successful appeal.” “A successful appeal is an appeal where the case is submitted to the Commission and a decision is rendered finding true value in money as the taxpayer proposed and advocated.” Burkemper v. SLCo (2002 WL 561033). Application of Section 137.345.5 RSMo requires:

(1) STC Decision after consideration of evidence;

(2) Application of the appropriate basis (methodology), i.e., cost, sales comparison, or income approach, for the valuing of the property; and

(3) Consideration in light of and under the overarching and controlling mandate to find the fair market value of the property under appeal.

The STC’s reasoning in Burkemper still holds today. A stipulated value cannot be equated to a Decision based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, a Decision which makes findings as to the appropriate methodology for arriving at TMV. A Decision by the STC provides a basis for future reference so the assessor and property owner have a foundation for future valuation.

If a TMV stipulated to, not the method for valuation determined by a Decision, becomes the basis for all future assessments, it not only violates the Constitution and Missouri law but ignores the impact and workings of the market area for the subject property and simple inflation in value.

Shipman v. DNS Electronic Materials, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. App. 2008) the Missouri Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

“The plain and ordinary meaning of “basis” as used in section 137.345.5 requires that there be some substantive connection between the valuation of property established through a successful appeal and subsequent assessments of that property. It must be the ‘basis.’ Section 137.345.5 requires that ‘any increases must be established from that basis.”

Complainant’s first point on its Application for Review is DENIED.

Agricultural Classification

For its second and third points for its Application for Review, Complainant argues the classification of its property. More specifically, Complainant argues that the property should not be a mixed classification but solely agricultural classification. Respondent classified the property as agricultural and commercial. Respondent classified that portion in which trees, shrubs and plants were growing as agriculture. Respondent classified the structures and the land dedicated to the hardscape materials as commercial.

Property devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops is properly classified as agricultural. Section 137.016.1(2) RSMo. Complainant’s use of the property which includes the growing and caring for trees, shrubs and perennials qualifies that portion for agricultural use. There is no dispute between the parties as to the land devoted to raising of the plants is properly classified as agricultural.

The issue of dispute is whether the property devoted to “hardscaping” and landscaping business is properly classified as commercial. Complainant cites Knoll Greenhouses v Holman, 2003 WL 724145 in support of its argument. In that appeal, the property was entirely classified as commercial property. The property owner appealed. The STC found that the property in which the owner was raising and harvesting plants – 8.34 acres of land used for growing plants, a green house and a building used for overflow of plants and storage of plant support products – should have been classified as agricultural property. The remaining property and land was properly classified as commercial.

Complainant emphasized the evidence of plant sales in Burkemper. The evidence in that appeal was that upon cross examination the owner conceded stating that “I’m not going to say that a plant has never been sold there.” In contrast, the evidence in this appeal is that the buildings are used as an office for the landscaping business, to store trucks, plumbing supplies, break room and to conduct sales of shrubs of approximately $40,000.

The Hearing Officer was not persuaded that hardscaping materials and landscaping business equated to devotion to growing and harvesting crops.[1] The Hearing Officer did not find Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence that the remaining land and structures were primarily devoted to raising and harvesting crops. Complainant failed to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence that the BOE was incorrect in their determination of mixed use of the parcel as agricultural (growing plants) and commercial (business of landscaping services).

Burden of Proof

The Complainant argues that he presented evidence and the Respondent did not present any witnesses therefore he has satisfied his burden. The Complainant is incorrect. 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. The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

The question is whether the Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence as to the use of the parcel as agricultural property. The Complainant must establish that the parcel is being used to raise and harvest crops. The Complainant established that the use of a portion of the parcel was agricultural – raising and harvesting trees, shrubs and flowers. Complainant did not persuade the Hearing Officer that the area devoted to hardscape and the landscaping business was devoted to raising and harvesting crops. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines landscape as “to modify or ornament (a natural landscape) by altering the plant cover and defines hardscape as “structures (such as fountains, benches, or gazebos) that are incorporated into a landscape.” Neither hardscape nor landscape involves the raising and harvesting of crops.

Complainant argues that due to a small amount of walk-in sales ($40,000) the residential structure and out-building should be deemed agricultural. The argument was not persuasive to the Hearing Officer. The witness testified that the residential structure is used by the witness and a secretary as the office building for the business of landscaping. The other building is used primarily as a storage building for trucks and plumbing supplies for the landscaping business and secondarily a “lunch room and place where we keep a cash register for when people buy things on site.” The lunch room is used to store plants in the winter.

The Hearing Officer found the buildings were used for the business of landscaping and the landscaping business was a commercial activity. The Hearing Officer was not persuaded that the limited use of storage of plants in the lunch room during the winter as being devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops. Complainant failed to meet its burden of substantial and persuasive evidence that the entirety of the property was devoted to raising and harvesting crops.

Summary & Conclusion

A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is competent, persuasive and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer. A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a full review of the entire record. The STC finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that she abused her 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 Hearing Officer did not err in her determinations as challenged by Complainant.

ORDER

Upon review of the record and the Decision in this appeal, the STC finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is Affirmed. The Decision and Order of the 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 St. Louis 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 October 31st, 2017.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

Will Kraus, Commissioner

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 31st day of October, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County 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

[1] Although Hearing Officer did find the land devoted to growing trees, shrubs and perennials was agricultural.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

MONARCH TREE FARM, LLC,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal No. 15-10101
	)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.

Monarch Tree Farm, LLC (Complainant) appeared by counsel Rick Stout.

Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by counsel Ed Corrigan.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer).

ISSUE

Complainant appealed on the ground of misclassification and misgraded agriculture. No evidence was presented as to the grade of the parcel and therefore that claim is deemed abandoned. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the proper classification of the property and the appropriate productivity value (grade) 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

Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
Evidentiary Hearing. The evidentiary hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, at the St. Louis County Administrative Building, St. Louis County, Missouri.
Identification of Subject Properties. The subject property is identified by parcel or locator number 18W120077, 108 North Eatherton in St. Louis County.
Description of Subject Properties. The subject property is over 14 acres of property improved with a residential structure and a storage building.
Assessment. Respondent set a TMV for the subject property of $214,900. The property was deemed a mixed use parcel of commercial (TMV of $148,800) and agriculture (TMV of $66,100).
Board of Equalization. BOE made a determination of TMV for the subject property of $214,900. The property was deemed a mixed use parcel of commercial (TMV of $148,800) and agriculture (TMV of $66,100).
Complainant’s Evidence.

To support their opinion of classification, Complainant offered as evidence the following:

Exhibit	Description
A	Photograph of the property in 1999
B	Photograph of the property in 2009
C	Letter from City of Chesterfield regarding zoning
D	BOE and Respondent’s Decision 2007
E	Stipulation for 1999
F	Photograph 2017
G	Written Direct Testimony of James Meiners

James Meiners testified on behalf of Complainant. He is a member of Monarch Tree Farm LLC. Monarch Tree Farm LLC grows trees, shrubs and perennials for use by Prestige Lanscape, Inc. He is the President of Prestige Landscape, Inc. The primary purpose of both businesses is landscaping.

Plants needed for installation in the landscape business are grown and cared for at the subject parcel. Few sales of trees and shrubs occur at the subject property as they maintain no open business hours for “walk-in” business. In 2015, only $40,000 in sales was derived from walk-in customers.

During cross-examination, the witness testified to the depiction in the 2015 aerial photo of the parcel. A residence on the property is used as a business office. Another building found on the subject property is used to store supplies and irrigation piping, house trucks, house a break room for employees, and hold plants during cold weather. Most of the land is used to grow trees. A section of the property is used for “hardscape” supplies – blocks, rocks, etc used for retaining walls and other hardscape features they install for landscape customers.

Complainant submitted an Order approving the Stipulation of the Parties in STC Appeals 99-10243 and 99-10244. Appeal 99-10243 was dismissed. In Appeal 99-10244, the parties agreed to an assessed valuation of $12,340 (agricultural) for tax years 1999-2000. Complainant submitted a BOE Decision from 2007-2008 in which the BOE lowered the value from $214,500, agricultural classification, to $136,500, agricultural classification.

Counsel for Complainant requested official notice of STC Appeal 11-11011 where the parties entered into a stipulation for the assessment of the parcel for tax years 2011-2013. The STC approved the stipulation of the parties.

Respondent’s Evidence.

To support their opinion of classification, Respondent offered as evidence the following:

Exhibit	Description
1	Photograph 2012
2	Photograph 2014
3	Photograph 2015
4	Document request
5	Rental Agreement
6	Interrogatories
7	Written Direct Testimony of David Winkler

Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted.

Evidence presented was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the classification of the entire parcel as agricultural or alter the grade of the parcel.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

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 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.

Burden of Proof

A presumption exists that the assessment 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).

Agricultural Land

Under Missouri statutory law, property shall be classified as agricultural and horticultural property when “real property [is] used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops . . .” Section 137.016.1(2) RSMo. The classification is determined by the actual use put to the property. Northtown Village v. Don Davis, Assessor, Jasper County. Mo., Appeal Nos. 03-62558 (May 27, 2004)[ providing that the definitions in Section 137.016 (2000) illustrate that “the classification turns on the actual use put to the property.] Cutting hay is an agricultural activity and such activity is sufficient to cause real property to be classified as “agricultural property”. Dickerson v. Curtis Koons, Assessor, Cass County, Mo. Appeal Number 01-49004 (June 11, 2002); Ernest W. Giddens, Trustee v. Rick Kessinger, Assessor, Greene County, MO., Appeal No. 05-33000 (Commission Decision April 19, 2007).

The subject parcel is classified as mixed use – commercial and agricultural. Complainant sought to have the entire parcel classified as agricultural. Complainant’s use of the property which includes the growing and caring for trees, shrubs and perennials qualifies that portion for agricultural use. However, Complainant failed to establish that the entire parcel was devoted to the raising and harvesting crops. Complainant’s use of the property devoted to “hardscaping”, landscaping business, and the selling of plants was not devoted to the growing and harvesting of a crop.

Complainant failed to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence that the BOE was incorrect in their determination of mixed use of the parcel as agricultural (growing plants) and commercial (business of selling plants and landscaping services).

Successful Appeal

Complainant also argues that the Stipulation entered into for tax years 1999-2000, the BOE determination from 2007-2008, and the Stipulation for an appeal filed in 2011 are to be considered “successful appeals” as the term is used in Section 137.345 RSMo.:

In every instance where a taxpayer has appealed to the board of equalization or the state tax commission the assessment of the taxpayer’s property, real or personal, and that appeal has been successful, then in the next following and all subsequent years the basis upon which the assessor must base future assessments of the subject property shall be the basis established by the successful appeal and any increases must be established from that basis.

(1) STC Decision after consideration of evidence;

(2) Application of the appropriate basis (methodology), i.e., cost, sales comparison, or income approach, for the valuing of the property; and

(3) Consideration in light of and under the overarching and controlling mandate to find the fair market value of the property under appeal.

To conclude otherwise ignores the market and inflation or the actual use of the property during the relevant tax year and thereby ignores the requirements of Section 137.115 RSMo requiring properties be assessed at a percentage of true value.

Shipman v. DNS Electronic Materials, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. App. 2008) the Missouri Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

“The cardinal rule of statutory construction requires the court to ascertain the true intention of the legislature, giving reasonable interpretation in light of the legislative objective. BCI Corporation v. Charlebois Construction Co., 673 S.W.2d 774, 780 (Mo. banc 1984). “If reasonably possible, all provisions must be harmonized.” Bartley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 649 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Mo. banc 1983). Statutes relating to the same subject matter are considered in pari materia. State ex rel. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri v. Gaertner, 32 S.W.3d 564, 566 (Mo. banc 2000). “The doctrine requires that statutes relating to the same subject matter be construed together even though they are found in different chapters or were enacted at different times. KC Motorcycle Escorts, L.L.C. v. Easley, 53 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Mo. App. 2001). By reading Section 137.345.5 RSMo., Art. X Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Missouri Constitution of 1945, Section 137.115 RSMo. and all other pertinent statutes and constitutional provisions in harmony, a settlement, especially one not based upon establishing the true market value of the property or the actual use of the property, does not constitute a successful appeal.

The BOE determination of 2007-2008 is not persuasive as establishing TVM for 2015 as the STC considered the valuation in 2011 and therefore any determination for 2007-2008 is not relevant.

ORDER

The assessment for the subject property as determined by the BOE is SUSTAINED.

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 St. Louis 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 May 23, 2017.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 23rd day of May, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

Quick Navigation

Monarch Tree Farm LLC v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

Information About

Recent Legal Decisions