PARK 370 DEVELOPMENT LLC )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeals Number 02-10275 thru 02-10286
)
PHILIP A. MUEHLHEAUSLER, )
ACTING ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 16, 2002, Complainant appealed the classification and valuation of the subject properties. The case was submitted to the Tax Commission on Stipulations of Fact. Respondent filed a brief. Complainant did not file a brief. Complainant is represented by Steven Koslovsky, Attorney at Law. Respondent is represented by Robert J. Droney, Attorney at Law. The case has been assigned to Hearing Officer Luann Johnson for decision and order.
ISSUE AND HOLDING
The only issue in this case is the proper classification of the subject property, and any concurrent valuation change resulting from a change in classification. For tax year 2002, Respondent changed the classification of the subject properties to Acommercial.@ Said change resulted in an increase in value for the parcels. The correct classification of the subject parcels is Aagricultural.@ The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.
VALUES
|
Appeal/Parcel No. |
Assessor & Board Market/Assessed |
Taxpayer Market/Assessed |
Tax Commission Market/Assessed |
|
02-10275 09M440038 |
$153,800/$49,200 |
$7,046/$845 |
$7,046/$845 |
|
02-10276 09M430138 |
$855,000/$273,760 |
$39,201/$4,704 |
$39,201/$4,704 |
|
02-10277 08M410041 |
$814,000/$260,510 |
$37,305/$4,476 |
$37,305/$4,476 |
|
02-10278 08M410030 |
$293,600/$93,950 |
$13,453/$1,614 |
$13,453/$1,614 |
|
02-10279 08M230025 |
$748,800/$239,620 |
$34,311/$4,117 |
$34,311/$4,117 |
|
02-10280 08M210094 |
$254,400/$81,410 |
$11,676/$1,401 |
$11,676/$1,401 |
|
02-10281 08M140067 |
$224,400/$78,210 |
$11,197/$1,344 |
$11,197/$1,344 |
|
02-10282 08M120070 |
$144,100/$45,150 |
$6,467/$766 |
$6,467/$766 |
|
02-10283 08M120069 |
$284,500/$91,040 |
$13,034/$1,564 |
$13,034/$1,564 |
|
02-10284 08M120047 |
$192,100/$61,470 |
$8,802/$1,056 |
$8,802/$1,056 |
|
02-10285 08M120036 |
$186,000/$59,520 |
$8,523/$1,023 |
$8,523/$1,023 |
|
02-10286 08M120025 |
$192,200/$61,500 |
$8,802/$1,056 |
$8,802/$1,056 |
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Complainant purchased the above-referenced parcels in 2002.
2. Prior to and after Complainant=s purchase, the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.
3. After purchase, Complainant platted the parcels for future commercial development.
4. Complainant has constructed infrastructure and brought utilities to the subject properties.
5. Complainant has obtained rezoning for the subject properties.
6. Complainant markets the subject properties for commercial development.
7. Prior to 2002, the properties were classified as Aagricultural.@ For tax year 2002, Respondent changed the classification of the properties to Acommercial.@
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
All real property used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops and to the feeding, breeding and management of livestock is Aagricultural and horticultural property.@ Section 137.016.1(2), RSMo.
After it has been established that the land is actually agricultural and horticultural property, as defined in Section 137.016, and is being valued and assessed accordingly, the land shall remain in this category as long as the owner of the land complies with the provisions of Sections 137.015 to 137.021. Section 137.017.2, RSMo.
Continuance of valuation and assessment for general property taxation under the provisions of Sections 137.017 to 137-021 shall depend upon continuance of the land being used as agricultural and horticultural property, as defined in Section 137.016, and compliance with the other requirements of Sections 137.017 to 137.021 and not upon continuance in the same owner of title to the land. Section 137.017.3, RSMo.
The filing of a real property subdivision plat with the recorder of deeds shall not, singularly, result in a change in classification or an increase in the appraised value of such property. Section 137.119, RSMo.
DECISION AND ORDER
Respondent contends that said parcels are vacant and unused and held for future development and should be classified and valued as commercial property. We disagree. Property which is being actively used for agricultural purposes is to be classified as agricultural property. The fact that the owner changes; or the owner files a subdivision plat; or the owner has plans for future development does not change the current classification of the property if agricultural use continues.
The values previously determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization are SET ASIDE. The Assessor is ordered to place the following assessed values on the books for tax year 2002:
For appeal 02-10275, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $845, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10276, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $4,704, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10277, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $4,476, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10278, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,614, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10279, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $4,117, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10280, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,401, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10281, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,344, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10282, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $766, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10283, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,564, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10284, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,056, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10285, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,023, as agricultural graded land.
For appeal 02-10286, the assessed value for the subject property is set at $1,056, as agricultural graded land.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.
If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with these appeals shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission 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 protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party 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 December 19, 2003.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Luann Johnson, Hearing Officer