Northwest Investments, et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

NORTHWEST INVESTMENTS, INC,)Appeal Number 07-11413

WARSON VILLAGE APARTMENTS,)Appeal Number 07-11421

VORHOF-DUENKE PROPERTY, III,)Appeal Number 07-11464

)

Complainants,)

)

v.)

)

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization are SET ASIDE.The Commission finds the values requested by the Complainants (the prior assessment value) must be applied for the 2007 – 08 assessment cycle.

Complainants filed Complaints for Review of Assessment based upon Sections 137.115(10) and (11), RSMo, and St. Louis County Ordinance 501.250.The State Tax Commission ordered the Respondent to file documents to establish prima facie that they were in compliance with the statutes.The Complainant filed a Motion for Decision and the Respondent filed his response on March 24, 2009.

ISSUE

The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money to be set for the 2007 – 08 assessment cycle under the provisions of Sections 137.115 and 138.060, RSMo.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  The subject properties are as follows:

Appeal Number	Complainant	Locator Number	Address of Property	2007 Assessor’s Value	2006 Value	Inspection Date
07-11413	Northwest Invest Inc.	11N611078	12100 Monter Drive	$3,336,500	$2,456,300*	10/12/06
07-11421	Warson Village Apt.	16M22090	1032 Coddington	$11,203,800	$8,910,000	9/13/06
07-11464	Vorhof-Duenke	30K230419	4851 Lemay Ferry	$3,976,300	$14,810,000*	9/25/06

 

 

2.                  The properties were inspected in on September and October, 2006.

 

3.                  The properties were inspected pursuant to a permit inspection.

4.                  There was no evidence that a written Change of Assessment Notice was sent to any of the Complainants.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.The Commission has jurisdiction to hear these appeals and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.

Grounds for Appeal

The property under appeal is a subclass (1) property (residential) under Section 4(b), Article X, Mo. Constitution.The Complainants stated on the Complaints for Review of Assessment that the Assessor failed to comply with the physical inspection requirement of Sections 137.115.10 and 137.115.11, RSMo.

Section 137.115.10, RSMo – Requirement of Physical Inspection

Section 137.115.10, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) establishes that: “Before the assessor may increase the assessed valuation of any parcel of subclass (1) real property by more than fifteen percent since the last assessment, excluding increases due to new construction or improvements, the assessor shall conduct a physical inspection of such property.”

St. Louis County inspected the properties as part of their building permit inspection.The purpose of Section 137.115, RSMo is to insure that the taxpayer’s property is inspected before an increase of over 15% may be finalized.An inspection occurring in September to October, 2006, is within a relevant time period for the statute.

Section 137.115.11, RSMo – Notice Regarding Physical Inspection

Section 137.115.11, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) requires in those instances where a physical inspection is required under 137.115.10 (more than 15% increase in residential assessed value since last assessment), the assessor is required to (1) notify the property owner in writing of the fact of the physical inspection being required, and (2) provide the owner with clear written notice of the owner’s rights relating to the physical inspection.

There is no evidence that the Complainants received a written notice of Change of Assessment.

Although the Respondent inspected the properties in September and October, 2006, there is no evidence that he provided the Complainants with a written notice that the inspection occurred or that the owner may request an additional exterior and/or interior property inspection.Further, there is no evidence that the Complainants were notified that their property values increased by more than 15%.

Section 138.060, RSMo – Assessor’s Burden of Proof on Physical Inspection

Section 138.060, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) provides in relevant part, that in St. Louis County, “… in the event a physical inspection of the subject property is required by subsection 10 of Section 137.115, RSMo, the assessor shall have the burden to establish the manner in which the physical inspection was performed and shall have the burden to prove that the physical inspection was performed in accordance with Section 137.115, RSMo.….”

The Respondent failed to meet his burden that he complied with the requirements of Section 137.115 ,RSMo.

ORDER

The assessed valuations by the Board of Equalization forSt. LouisCountyfor subject property are SET ASIDE.The assessed values for the properties for tax years 2007 and 2008 areas follows:

 

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 Decision.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with these appeals shall be held pending the final decision of the courts.If no judicial review is made within thirty (30) 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 these appeals.

If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, Complainants may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

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 April 21, 2009.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

 

_____________________________________

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

 

 

_____________________________________

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

 

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 21^stday of April, 2009, to:James Gamble, 8909 Ladue Road, St. Louis, MO 63124, Attorney for Complainants; Michael Shuman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Philip Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator