State Tax Commission of Missouri
PATRICIA REIN,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.) Appeal No.09-20074
)
ED BUSHMEYER,ASSESSOR,)
ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing. Respondent appeared by Counsel, Carl W. Yates III, Associate City Counselor.Appeal dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2009.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis City Board of Equalization.
2.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 377 North Taylor, 2 South, St. Louis, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 3896-00-0409-0.
3.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the subject property at $150,420, an assessed residential value of $28,580.The Board sustained that assessment.
4.Evidentiary Hearing.By Order issued March 4, 2010, case was set for evidentiary hearing at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 31, 2010, in the City Hall, St. Louis, Missouri.Complainant was informed by said Order that if she could not attend the hearing and needed a continuance a request must be made in writing and filed with the Commission no later than five days before the hearing date.No request for continuance was filed with the Commission by Complainant.Complainant was further advised that failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.Staff appraiser Tim Keller contacted the Complainant by phone and was advised she no longer wished to pursue the matter.[1]Mr. Keller so informed the Hearing Officer.
5.Respondent’s Appraisal.Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report of Tim Keller, Real Estate Appraiser for City of St. Louis, was received into evidence.Exhibit 1 provided clear and convincing evidence to sustain the value of $150,420 set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.Comparable sales analysis supported a value in a range of $166,600, $178,900 and $181,900.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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.[2]
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[3]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.[4]
Dismissal of Appeal
A Hearing Officer on his own motion or the motion of Complainant may dismiss an appeal.[5]Appeal is dismissed upon information Complainant did not wish to proceed with the matter and for failure of prosecution.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis City for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $28,580.
Complainant 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 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. [6]
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 a 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 April 2, 2010.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
_____________________________________
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 2ndday of April, 2010, to:Patricia Rein, 377 North Taylor, 2 South, St. Louis, MO 63108,Complainant; Carl W. Yates III, Associate City Counselor, 314 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103, Attorney for Respondent; Ed Bushmeyer, Assessor, 120 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103; Gregory Daly, Collector, 110 City Hall, St. Louis, MO 63103.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
P.O. Box 146
301 W. High Street, Room 840
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 FAX
[1] Phone conversation occurred at approximately 9:40 a.m. on March 31, 2010, after Complainant had failed to appear at 9:30 as ordered for the evidentiary hearing.
[3] 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).