Opus Real Estate America III v. Zimmerman (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

OPUS REAL ESTATE AMERICA, III, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 05-10895

)

JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )

)

Respondent. )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s assessment SET ASIDE. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for 2005-2006 is $13,800,000, assessed value of $3,691,500.

Complainant appeared by counsel, Thomas Caradonna.

Respondent appeared by counsel, Edward Corrigan

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the County Board of Equalization. Having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, the following Decision and Order is entered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on March 4, 2013, at the St. Louis County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.

3. Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number: 18R110011 and is further identified as 14755 N. Outer 40 Rd, Chesterfield, Missouri.

4. Assessment The Assessor determined the valuation of the property at $19,251,000, commercial assessed value of $6,160,320. The Complainant appealed to the County Board of Equalization. On August 22, 2005, the Board issued a written notice of finding of value of $13,800,000 and classifying the property as commercial. An assessment ratio of 32% was applied for an assessed value of $4,416,000.

5. Complainant’s Evidence.

Complainant presented the following Exhibits which were admitted into evidence:

 

6. Respondent’s Evidence.

Respondent presented the following Exhibits which were admitted into evidence:

 

Complainant objected to all of the exhibits. Complainant objected to Exhibit 1 as to relevance as it does not pertain to value. The exhibit was admitted into evidence to establish that the Assessor fulfilled the statutory requirement of providing notice prior to raising value.

Complainant objected to Exhibits 2 and 4 as hearsay. Exhibits 2 and 4 were admitted into evidence to establish ownership of the parcel.

Complainant objected to Exhibits 3 and 5 as to relevance. Certificates of value may be relevant as to market value of the property. The weight given to the document will depend on the date of the sale, verification of the conditions of the sale, and the other evidence presented.

Complainant objected to Exhibit 6. The Exhibits submitted by Respondent are official documents or records of the county although the testimony provided some foundation for the documents.

7. On September 25-27, 2007, General Grant Realty, 03-12172, was heard by State Tax Commission Senior Hearing Officer Luann Johnson. During the course of that hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation for appeals filed in regards to the 2005 assessment cycle. The oral stipulation made part of the hearing included:

p. 351, line 11 MR FRANCIS: “But what we are agreeing to – to settle today is the ratio aspect of the discrimination cases of these appeals. At a –At a level of 26.75 percent. With the understanding that the value aspect will continue in these appeals, as well as the issues that the taxpayers have raised with the Commission, the Cole County Circuit Court, and the Court of Appeals, as it relates to the appeal on the –on the written proceeding.

 

HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. CORRIGAN: Well, with—with the understanding that the –the value issue—the value issue will remain in play in these appeals, that means I just –for seeking clarification. That the Commission then would treat all of the – the appeals as overvaluation appeals?

 

HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Yes.

 

MR. CORRIGAN: At that point?

 

HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: And they would all be individual appeals at that point.

 

MR. CORRIGAN: Okay, Yes, I—

 

MR. FRANCIS: With a –With the ratio of 26.75 applied to whatever value is ultimately resolved?

 

HEARING OFFICER JOHSNON: That’s my understanding of you –

 

MR. FRANCIS: Correct

 

HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: –agreement, yes.

 

MR. CORRIGAN: Yes. The County consents to –to-what Mr. Francis has articulated.”

 

8. On September 25, 2008, the State Tax Commission issued an Order Setting Commercial Ratio which stated:

“In accordance with the proceedings in Appeal 03-12172 in September, 2007 (Tr. 350:14-352:15) wherein the parties stipulated on the record to an assessment ratio of 26.75 percent, the commercial assessment ratio for tax years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for the above-reference appeals is 26.75 percent. True values in money determined by evidentiary hearing or stipulated to by the parties for the properties under appeal will be assessed at 26.75 percent to arrive at the assessed values for tax years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.”

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

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.[1] The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[2]

Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.[3]

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[4] 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.[5]

Discrimination

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2005; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. [6]

The issue of discrimination was resolved upon the parties entering into a stipulation as to that issue.

Stipulation

The parties entered into an agreement setting the assessment ratio for the property. The parties stipulated on the record to an assessment ratio of 26.75 percent The parties further agreed that the true value in money determined by evidentiary hearing or stipulated to by the parties for the properties under appeal will be assessed at 26.75 percent to arrive at the assessed value for tax years 2005 and 2006.

Valuation

The remaining issue is the true issue of the property as of January 1, 2005. Complainant presented the finding of value by the Board of Equalization of $13,800,000. The County presented evidence of certificates of value dated September 2003 and September 2005. No evidence was presented indicating that information contained in the certificate of value was verified. No one testified to the completion or the contents of the document.

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. Without substantial and persuasive evidence presented, the Board’s value stands.

Conclusion

Upon a finding of true value, $13,800,000, the parties’ agreed to ratio of 26.75 percent is applied.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $3,691,500 (TV$13,800,000 x AR 26.75%).

Application for Review

Parties may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service. The application shall contain specific 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. [7]

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 June 4, 2013.

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 on this 4^th day of June, 2013, to: Thomas Caradonna, 600 Washington Ave., Suite 2500, St. Louis, MO 63101, Attorney for Complainant; Edward Corrigan, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Mark Devore, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator