State Tax Commission of Missouri
| PATRICK & FRANCINE ROBERTSON, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant(s), | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Number 15-89508 |
| ) | ||
| CHUCK PENNEL, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of Taney County is AFFIRMED. Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value of the subject property.
Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax year 2015 is set at $83,728 residential, $16,800 agricultural.
Complainant Francine Robertson appeared pro se.
Complainant Patrick Robertson did not appear.
Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation and misclassification. The Taney County Board of Equalization set the value of the subject property at $83,728 residential assessed value, $16,800 agricultural assessed value. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for 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 State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on November 24, 2015 at Taney County Courthouse, Forsyth, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 04-2.1-04-000-000-001.002. It is further identified as 6918 State Highway H, Forsyth, Taney County, Missouri. (Complaint for Review)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a tract of land improved by a single family, two-story home, which is brick. The subject property also includes a 100’ x 50’ building which is used for storing of agricultural equipment in one part of such, for the fixing of agricultural equipment in another part and for the storage of automobiles in another part. No particulars regarding the square footage, number of rooms and amenities of the primary residence were put into evidence other than various pictures of the exterior of the property. (Ex. 1). Complainant Francine Robertson testified that approximately one-half of the 100’ x 50” building is used for the storage of agricultural equipments and that the other half is used for working on agricultural equipment and the storage of automobiles. The subject property consist of 89 acres, with approximately 79 of such acres being wooded (Testimony)
- Construction Cost of Subject. The subject property was constructed for $550,000. (Testimony)
- Assessment. The Assessor assessed the property at $110,890 residential and $840 agricultural (Complaint for Review & Ex. ).
- Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization changed the assessment of the property to $83,728 residential and $16,800 agricultural.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant Francine Robertson offered only her testimony in support of Complainants’ appeal.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibits 1 which consisted of various pictures of the exterior of the property and its structures. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence without objection.
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. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money.
Presumption In Appeal
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. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2015. Hermel, supra. There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission 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.” See, 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); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970). “Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.” Carmel Energy at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980).
Standard for Valuation
Section 137.115, RSMo, requires that property be assessed based upon its true value in money which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and bought by one who is willing or desirous to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Mo. App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).
It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.
Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction. Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; See also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.
Weight to be Given Evidence
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. 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 v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
Complainant Fails to Prove Value
Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2015 for the subject property. Complainant stated the cost to construct was $550,000. Such cost to construct supports the valuation determined by the Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalizations allotment of residential property and agricultural property appears sound. Consequently, the value established by the Board of Equalization is AFFIRMED.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Taney County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at $83,728 residential and $16,800 agricultural.
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 Taney 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 this 8th day of December, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
John Treu
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on December 8th, 2015 or by mail to the following Individuals of this Order
Patrick & Francine Robertson, Complainants, franrobertson@centurylink.net
Chuck Pennel, Assessor, chuckp@co.taney.mo.us
Jacklyn Wood
Legal Coordinator