State Tax Commission of Missouri
RANDY L. WEBBER,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.) Appeal Number(s) 10-66002 & 10-66003
)
KEVIN BISHOP, ASSESSOR,)
LINCOLN COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The assessments made by the Assessor are SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 10-66002 for tax year 2010 is set at $31,380, residential assessed value of $5,960.True value in money for the subject property in Appeal 10-66003 for tax year 2010 is set at $26,660, residential assessed value of $5,060.
Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the Assessor’s valuations of the two properties.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2009.The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant purchased the properties in June, 2010 and did not become aware of the assessment on the properties until receipt of the tax bill, which was after the time for appeal to the Board of Equalization.Complainant filed his appeal with the Commission prior to December 31, 2010.[1]A hearing was conducted on March 10, 2011, at the Lincoln County Courthouse, Troy, Missouri.
2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property in each appeal at $50,000, a residential assessment of $9,500.[2]
3.Subject Property – 10-66002.The subject property in Appeal 10-66002 is located at 221 Mallard Point Boulevard, Old Monroe, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 13-80-28-3.078.The property consists of a 1.089 acre unimproved lot in the Mallard Pointe Subdivision.[3]
4.Subject Property – 10-66003.The subject property in Appeal 10-66003 is located at 211 Mallard Point Boulevard, Old Monroe, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 13-80-28-3.079.The property consists of a 1.029 acre unimproved lot in the Mallard Pointe Subdivision.[4]
5.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant testified in his own behalf.He stated his opinion of value for the two properties to be the price he paid for each lot on June 13, 2010.Lot 78 was purchased for $26,000.Lot 79 was purchased for $20,000.The lots were purchased at a real estate auction at which there were 25 – 30 persons in attendance and there were three persons who bid on the subject lots.[5]
The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of Complainant:
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Appeal 10-66002 – Plat Map of Lot 78 |
|
B |
Sale Contract & copy of down payment check for Lot 78 |
|
C |
Appeal 10-66003 – Plat Map of Lot 79 |
|
D |
Sale Contract & copy of down payment check for Lot 78 |
|
E |
Sales Listing – 11 lots Mallard Pointe – $132,000 – dated 3/10/11 |
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent testified in his own behalf. He valued the lots at $50,000 each based upon the original listing data and sales data from 2006 and 2007.
The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of Respondent:
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Copy of Section 137.115.1, RSMo |
|
2 |
Property Record Card – Lot 78 |
|
3 |
Property Record Card – Lot 79 |
|
4 |
Multi-Listing Service Sales Data |
|
5 |
Original Flyer on Mallard Pointe & Newspaper Ad |
6.Sales History – Mallard Pointe Subdivision.The Assessor could only locate sales information on the six sales in Exhibit 4.[6]There is no sales data for the years 2008 or 2009.The following sales and listing information (last three items are listings for 11 lots) is established for lots in the Mallard Pointe Subdivision:[7]
|
DATE |
PRICE |
ACRE |
PER/ACRE |
|
5/17/06 |
$56,900 |
1.000 |
$56,900 |
|
6/20/06 |
$56,900 |
1.000 |
$56,900 |
|
8/31/06 |
$56,900 |
1.291 |
$44,074 |
|
10/1/06 |
$56,900 |
1.083 |
$52,539 |
|
3/15/07 |
$55,000 |
1.059 |
$51,936 |
|
6/20/07 |
$58,500 |
1.028 |
$56,907 |
|
1/31/11 |
$30,000 |
1 – 1.97 |
Per lot |
|
1/31/11 |
$25,000 |
1 – 1.97 |
Bulk Sale |
|
3/10/11 |
$12,000 |
1 – 1.97 |
Bulk Sale |
7.Valuation of Lot 78 – Appeal 10-66002.The lot closest in size to Lot 78 sold in October 2006 for $52,539 per acre.This value is relevant to establish the value of Lot 78 as of January 1, 2007 would have been $57,220.[8]The value of the lot as of June 2010 was $26,000.From January 2007 to June 2010 (29 months) the property declined in value by $31,220, or $1076.55 per month.Applying that rate of decline in value, the indicated value for Lot 78 on January 1, 2009, would have been $31,380.[9]
There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.[10]
The residential assessed value for the 2010 tax year is $5,960.[11]
8.Valuation of Lot 79 – Appeal 10-66003.The lot closest in size to Lot 79 (Appeal 10-66003) sold in June 2007 for $56,907 per acre.This value is relevant to establish the value of Lot 79 as of January 1, 2007, would have been $58,560.[12]The value of the lot as of June 2010 was $20,000.From January 2007 to June 2010 (29 months) the property declined in value by $38,560, or $1,329.66 per month.Applying that rate of decline in value, the indicated value for Lot 78 on January 1, 2009, would have been $26,660.[13]
There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.[14]
The residential assessed value for the 2010 tax year is $5,060.[15]
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.[16]
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.[17]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.[18]In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed must be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.
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.[19]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[20]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[21]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:
1.Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
2.Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
3.A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
4.Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
5.Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
6.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.[22]
Hearing Officer Finds Value
Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.[23]The subject properties sold in June 2010.Although the sale occurred eighteen months after the valuation date of January 1, 2009, given the history concerning the marking and sale of properties in the subject subdivision, the June 2010 sale was at a time relevant for valuing these properties.The June 2010 sales of the subjects can be used with the other sale evidence on lots in the Mallard Pointe Subdivision to calculate a rate of decline in values for the subject lots.
The substantial and persuasive evidence exists in the record to provide a sound basis for making the determination of value as set forth in Findings of Fact 7 and 8, supra.Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[24]Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief.[25]
ORDER
The assessed valuations for the subject properties as determined by the Assessor for Lincoln County for the subject tax day are SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 10-66002 for tax year 2010 is set at $5,960.
The assessed value for the subject property in Appeal 10-66003 for tax year 2010 is set at $5,060.
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, MO65102-0146, 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. [26]
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Lincoln 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.If no Application for Review is filed with the Commission within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service, the Collector, 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 this appeal.
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 27, 2011.
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 27thday of April, 2011, to:Randy Webber, 503 Cherry Street, Winfield, MO 63389, Complainant; G. John Richards, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 319, 45 Business Park Drive Troy, MO 63379, Attorney for Respondent; Kevin Bishop, Assessor, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379; Rick Wilcockson, Clerk, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO63379; Jerry Fox, Collector, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator
Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
301 W. High Street, Room 840
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
573-751-2414
573-751-1341 Fax
[2] Residential property is assessed at 19% of true value in money (fair market value), Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo
[3] 2010 Real Estate Tax Statement, attached to Complaint for Review of Assessment; Exhibit A, Exhibit 2.
[4] 2010 Real Estate Tax Statement, attached to Complaint for Review of Assessment; Exhibit C, Exhibit 3.
[9] $1,076.55 x 24 = $25,837.20, rounded to $25,837; $57,220 – $25,837 = $31,383, rounded to $31,380.
[13] $1,329.66 x 24 = $31,911.84, rounded to $31,912; $58,560 – $31,912 = $26,658, rounded to $26,660.
[19] 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).
[20] 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).
[22] 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.