State Tax Commission of Missouri
RAYBILL INVESTMENTS, INC,)
v.) Appeal Number 10-51500
JERRY HOWARD, ASSESSOR,)
CLINTON COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the Clinton County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2010 is set at $200,000, residential assessed value of $38,000.
Complainant presented exhibits but Respondent failed to do so, thus waiving his right to present evidence at hearing pursuant to Commission Order dated March 30, 2011.Further, by failing to respond to the Commission Order of July 11, 2011, Respondent waived his right to cross examine Complainant’s expert witness.Therefore, pursuant to said Order of July 11, 2011, this case is decided upon the written direct testimony and appraisal report submitted by Complainant.
Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer Luann Johnson.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Clinton County 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, 2010.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 timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Clinton County Board of Equalization.By Order dated July 11, 2011, Respondent failed to inform the Hearing Officer in writing if Respondent wished to cross-examine Complainant’s witness, accordingly case is taken up for decision under Complainant’s Exhibits 1 and 2.
2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $788,000 a commercial assessment of $252,160.The Board sustained the value but changed the classification to residential and reduced the assessed value to $149,720.
3.Subject Property.The subject property is a 6.4 acre tract improved with a 25,050 square foot, one-story structure with brick veneer exterior and wood framing built on a concrete slab built in 1975.The building was designed as a nursing home and divided into approximately 44 residential rooms plus several offices, storage, dining area, kitchen, and a sitting area.The main portion of the building is heated and each residential room has a wall heating/cooling unit.In addition to the primary structure, the property is also improved with a 8 x 40 foot galvanized attachment and a 24 x 8 foot garage area.The property is identified as parcel number10-07.1-36-000-000-006.000, more commonly known as 702 South Center Street, Lathrop, Clinton County, Missouri.
Considerable deferred maintenance was noted to the interior and, because of nonuse, mechanical systems are estimated to be in only fair condition.
The property was purchased by the current owner for the sum of $2.00 on July 3, 2007.At the time of purchase, the property had been in bankruptcy for approximately five to six years and had not been in operation for approximately five years.The “Certificate of Need,” as a nursing home, has expired for this facility.Potential uses of the subject property, without major reconfiguration, are limited.
4.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant submitted the following exhibits which are received into the record:
Appraisal Report of James Downey
Written Direct Testimony of James Downey
No objections were made to the exhibits.The Exhibits are received into the record.
Complainant’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2010, to be $200,000.
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent did not file and exchange any exhibits or written direct testimony in the appeals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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.
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.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.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.The only evidence on the record in this appeal that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal consists of the Downey appraisal and written direct testimony of Mr. Downey, Complainant’s expert witness.Accordingly, consistent with the constitutional mandate, the Hearing Officer must find the true value in money for the subject property based upon those sources.
Presumption In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.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.When some substantial evidence is produced by the Complainant, “however slight,” the presumption disappears and the Hearing Officer, as trier of facts, receives the issue free of the 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.
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.True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.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.
Methods of Valuation
Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case.Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. Complainant’s appraiser considered the income and sales comparison approach but elected to not develop them.The cost approach was developed by the appraiser, and valuation was concluded to be $200,000.
Opinion Testimony by Experts
If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.
The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
James Downey was qualified by his knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to testify as an expert on the subject of the fair market value of the subject property as of
January 1, 2010.The facts and data upon which Mr. Downey based his opinion of value were of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the appraisal of real estate and they are found to be otherwise reliable.Therefore, the opinion of value concluded by the appraiser was competent and relevant evidence on the issue before the Hearing Officer on the fair market value of the property under appeal.
Complainant Proves Value of $200,000
In order to prevail, Complainant 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, 2010.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.”
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.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.
The Downey appraisal constituted substantial and persuasive evidence of what a willing buyer and seller would have paid for the property under appeal on January 1, 2010.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Clinton County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2010 is set at $38,000.
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.
The Collector of Clinton 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 September 16, 2011.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 16thday of September, 2011, to:Jere Loyd, 507 Francis Street, Suite 208, St. Joseph, MO 64501-1748, Attorney for Complainant; Bill Burris, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 285, Plattsburg, MO 64477, Attorney for Respondent; Jerry Howard, Assessor, P.O. Box 436, Plattsburg, MO 64477; Mary Blanton, Clerk, P.O. Box 245, Plattsburg, MO 64477; Sharon Cockrum, Collector, P.O. Box 334, Plattsburg, MO 64477.
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
 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)
 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).
 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.
 St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).
 Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
 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).