STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|RHETT G. BERRY & SHELLY M. BERRY,||)
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-62500|
|CONNIE HOOVER, ASSESSOR,||)|
|JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI,
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED, in part, and SET ASIDE, in part. Complainants Rhett G. and Shelly M. Berry (collectively referred to as Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE with regard to the true market value (TMV) of the subject property. However, Complainants presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE with regard to the classification of a portion of the subject property.
Complainants appeared pro se.
Respondent Connie Hoover, Assessor, Jasper County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by counsel Norman Rouse.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainants appealed on the grounds of overvaluation and misclassification. Respondent initially set the TMV of the subject property at $138,920, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE valued the subject property at $108,760, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TMV and the proper classification of the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
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. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issues of overvaluation and misclassification were presented at an evidentiary hearing on October 27, 2017, at the Jasper County Courthouse, 302 S. Main, Carthage, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 14-1.0-02-000-000-005.000. It is further identified as 1483 E. Chestnut St., Carthage, Jasper County, Missouri. (Complaint)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of 6.12 acres improved by a 1,530 square-foot, two-story single-family home constructed in 1925. (Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3) The home includes three bedrooms; one full bathroom; one half bathroom; a full unfinished basement; one fireplace; and central heating and air conditioning. The exterior of the home consists of frame construction with aluminum siding. (Exhibit 3) The subject property also includes a detached garage; a frame shed; and a pole building. (Exhibit 3) The subject property is located in a rural area of Jasper County near Carthage. (Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) The subject property is serviced by a well and a septic system. (Exhibit 3)
- Assessment. Respondent set a TMV for the subject property of $138,920, residential, as of January 1, 2017. The entire 6.12-acre parcel was assessed at the statutory rate of 19% of TMV.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE set a TMV for the subject property of $108,760, residential, as of January 1, 2017. The entire 6.12-acre parcel was assessed at the statutory rate of 19% of TMV.
- Complainant’s Evidence. To support Complainants’ opinion of value and claim of misclassification, Complainants offered as evidence the following exhibits:
|Exhibit A1-5||Copy of Section 137.016 RSMo (2016)|
|Exhibit B1-5||Copies of Complainants’ Complaint for Review; 2016 Jasper County Tax Statement; 2017 Notice of Change; Informal Hearing Results dated June 5, 2017; and BOE Hearing Results dated July 21, 2017|
|Exhibit C1-2||Copies of page one of Complainants’ 2016 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1040 and Schedule F Profit or Loss From Farming|
Both Mr. Berry and Mrs. Berry testified. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property in the summer of 2016 from an indvidual for $136,500. Mrs. Berry testified that the subject property was neither listed with a realtor nor publicly advertised; Complainants had been renting the subject property from the previous owner for about a year when they purchased it. Mrs. Berry testified that the subject property was encumbered by a mortgage in the amount of approximately $124,100. Mrs. Berry testified that the subject property had been appraised when Complainants purchased it but that she did not know the appraised value of the subject property. Although Complainants had claimed on their Complaint for Review form that the subject property should be valued at $87,670, during the Evidentiary Hearing, Mrs. Berry testified that the subject property’s TMV as of January 1, 2017, was the amount for which they purchased it, $136,500.
Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had been confused about the reason the taxes for the subject property had increased from 2016 to 2017. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had received a tax bill for 2016 totaling $763.23 for a full year’s worth of taxes. Mrs. Berry testified that the tax bill for 2016 showed that some of the subject property had been assessed as residential and some of the subject property had been assessed as agricultural. (Exhibit B2) Mrs. Berry testified that the 2017 Notice of Change increased the assessed value of the subject property but still showed that some of the subject property had been assessed as residential and some of the subject property had been assessed as agricultural. (Exhibit B3) Mrs. Berry testified that she had inquired regarding the increase in assessed value and was informed that it was due to the fact that Respondent did not know the home included a basement even though the house had been built in 1925.
Mr. Berry testified that the only improvement to the subject property since Complainants had purchased it was the addition of fencing in the form of “cattle panels.” Mr. Berry testified that the subject property had been a farm when it was owned by the individual who had sold it to Complainants and that the subject property had continued to be a farm after Complainants purchased it. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants used a portion of the land for raising vegetables. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants added livestock (chickens, quail, chukars, hogs) after January 1, 2017. Mr. Berry testified that he had been informed by Respondent’s office that the subject property would be classified as agricultural only if cattle were present on the land. Mr. Berry testified that, at the time of the evidentiary hearing, Complainants had chickens, hogs, and a donkey on the land and raised pumpkins and tomatoes. Mr. Berry testified that the livestock were free-ranging and utilized the entire subject property and that only two sides of the perimeter of the subject property were fenced.
Respondent did not object to Complainants’ exhibits, all of which were received into the record.
- Respondent’s Evidence. To support Respondent’s opinion of value and classification, Respondent offered as evidence the following exhibits:
|Exhibit 1||Complainants’ Informal Hearing Form dated May 24, 2017|
|Exhibit 2||Residential/Rural Review Document for the subject property|
|Exhibit 3||Property Record Card for the subject property|
|Exhibit 4||Card left by Field Deputy/Sales Letter dated November 3, 2016, indicating basic information regarding home and Complainants’ purchase price|
|Exhibit 5||Color aerial photograph depicting subject property, including home and outbuildings and perimeter of 6.12 acre parcel|
|Exhibit 6||Color photograph depicting front and side of home|
|Exhibit 7||Color photograph depicting shed with “cattle panel” fence and hog|
|Exhibit 8||Color photograph depicting “cattle panel” fence and corner of shed|
|Exhibit 9||Color photograph depicting “cattle panel” fence|
|Exhibit 10||Color photograph depicting seedlings and “cattle panel” fence|
|Exhibit 11||Color aerial photograph depicting subject property, including home and outbuildings and perimeter of 6.12 acre parcel plus interior fence of 100.32 feet in length attached to shed|
|Exhibit 12||Copy of Complainants’ 2017 Personal Property Assessment List form showing no livestock owned as of January 1, 2017|
|Exhibits 13, 14, 15||Residential/Rural Review Documents for three comparable properties|
|Exhibit 16||Map of area showing proximity of comparable properties to subject property|
Lisa Perry (Ms. Perry), administrative assistant for the Assessor’s Office, testified on behalf of Respondent. Ms. Perry testified that Respondent sent Complainants an impact notice due to a change in the value and the use of the subject property. Ms. Perry testified that she could not state what had generated the rise in the value of the subject property. Ms. Perry testified that, at Complainants’ informal hearing, Mr. Berry had stated the subject property was not being used for agricultural purposes and that he did not own any livestock on January 1, 2017, but mowed the entire parcel. Ms. Perry testified that this information precipitated an inspection by a deputy assessor, who saw Mr. Berry installing fencing on the subject property. Ms. Perry testified that Respondent subsequently removed the agricultural classification and added a “concrete pad,” and the TMV of $138,920 was subsequently generated. Ms. Perry testified that the land was valued by “first acre closest to the house” and then using “step-down classifications” of land in relation to their proximity to the residence.
Complainants did not object to Respondent’s exhibits, all of which were received into the record.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted With Regard to True Market Value; Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted With Regard to Classification – Correct Classifications Established. Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE regarding the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2017, which was $108,760. Complainants presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE regarding classification of the subject property as of January 1, 2017, which was a mixed-use of residential and agricultural.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement. The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, 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 property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification, or assessment of the property. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Id.
During the Evidentiary Hearing, the Hearing Officer inquired of Complainants.
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. The BOE presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.
In the present appeal, the BOE lowered the initial valuation of Respondent and sustained the classification of Respondent. Complainants are now seeking to lower the BOE’s valuation and change the BOE’s classification while Respondent is seeking to uphold the BOE’s valuation and classification; therefore, the BOE presumption applies with regard to Complainants.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainants must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975). See also, 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).
There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC 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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “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. E.D. 1980).
In this case, Mrs. Berry testified that the TMV of the subject property on January 1, 2017, was the amount Complainants paid for it in 2016, $136,500.
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. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). 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. 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. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.
“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
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.
In this case, neither Complainants nor Respondent offered any evidence utilizing one or more of the three recognized approaches to valuing real property.
Classification of Real Property
According to Missouri law, “residential property” is all real property (1) improved by a structure which is used or intended to be used for residential living by human occupants; (2) vacant land in connection with an airport; (3) land used as a golf course; (4) manufactured home parks; (5) bed and breakfast inns in which the owner resides and uses as a primary residence with six or fewer rooms for rent; and (6) time-share units as as defined in Section 407.600 except to the extent such units are actually rented and subject to sales tax under Section 144.020.1(6); but residential property shall not include other similar facilities used primarily for transient housing. Section 137.016.1(1).
“Agricultural and horticultural property” is all real property used for agricultural purposes and devoted primarily to the raising and harvesting of crops; to the feeding, breeding and management of livestock which shall include breeding, showing, and boarding of horses; to dairying, or to any other combination thereof; and buildings and structures customarily associated with farming, agricultural, and horticultural uses. Section 137.016.1(2). Agricultural and horticultural property shall also include land devoted to and qualifying for payments or other compensation under a soil conservation or agricultural assistance program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government. Id.
Where real property is used or held for use for more than one purpose and such uses result in different classifications, the county assessor shall allocate to each classification the percentage of the true value in money of the property devoted to each use; except that, where agricultural and horticultural property, as defined in this section, also contains a dwelling unit or units, the farm dwelling, appurtenant residential-related structures and up to five acres immediately surrounding such farm dwelling shall be residential property, as defined in this section. Section 137.016.4 (emphasis added).
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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).
The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
In the present appeal, no expert witnesses testified. Complainants testified and Ms. Perry testified.
In this case, Complainants’ evidence was neither substantial nor persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE with regard Complainants’ claim of overvaluation. However, Complainants’ evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE with regard to Complainants’ claim of misclassification. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id.
With regard to the claim of overvaluation, Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property in 2016 for $136,500. On cross examination, Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants believed the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2017, was the amount for which they purchased it — $136,500. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had negotiated a lower price than the seller’s asking price. From this evidence, one can reasonably conclude that Complainants conceded the TMV of the subject property was at least equal to the BOE’s valuation of $108,760.
With regard to the claim of misclassification, Exhibit B established that the BOE had classified 100% of the 6.12 acre subject property as residential as of January 1, 2017. Complainants testified that they purchased livestock after January 1, 2017. Complainants testified that the livestock were “freeranging” and utilized the entire subject property. However, this particular use of the entire 6.12 acre subject property was not occurring on January 1, 2017. Furthermore, Complainants admitted that they had not claimed to have owned any livestock as personal property as of January 1, 2017, on their 2017 personal property assessment list. (Exhibit 12) During the evidentiary hearing, Respondent argued that Respondent’s determination of classification as residential for 2017 had been based, at least in part, on the ground that Complainants did not own any livestock on the relevant tax date. However, the presence of livestock is not the only reason the subject property could be classified as agricultural and horticulatrual property under Section 137.016(2).
Complainants’ evidence established that Complainants had raised vegetables on part of the land during 2016. Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had maintained two 50 foot x 50 foot (5,000 square feet or approximately 1/12th of one acre) vegetable patches and sold the produce to friends, family, and coworkers. Complainants had filed IRS Schedule F, Profit or Loss from Farming, with their 2016 federal income tax 1040 form, which showed that Complainants earned $493 from “Sales of livestock, produce, grains, and other products [they] raised,” and expended $6,844 for “Feed,” “Seeds and plants,” “Supplies,” “Taxes,” “trailer taxes,” “greenhouse expenses,” “telephone,” and “Brooder Equipment.” (Exhibit C) Complainants’ IRS Schedule F showed a net farm loss of $6,351 in 2016. (Exhibit C) Mrs. Berry testified that Complainants had continued raising and selling vegetables in 2017. On the whole, from this evidence, one could reasonably conclude that Complainants were using part (5,000 square feet or approximately 1/12th of one acre) of the subject property’s 6.12 acres for agricultural purposes as of January 1, 2017. During Respondent’s cross examination of Mrs. Berry, Respondent attempted to discredit Complainants’ activity as non-agricultural activity because it had resulted in a net loss for income tax purposes, but Section 137.016(2) does not require the land’s use to be profitable in order to be classified as agricultural and horticultural property for ad valorem tax purposes.
The TMV of $108,760 for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED. The classification of the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. For tax year 2017 only, 5.99 acres (98%) of the subject property are classified as residential property, to be assessed at the statutory rate of 19% of TMV, while the remaining 1/12th of one acre (2%) of the subject property is classified as agricultural, to be assessed at the statutory rate of 12% of TMV.
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC 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
The Collector of Jasper 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 November 21, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 21st day of November, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 This valuation of the subject property was higher than the BOE’s valuation.
 The evidence established that, during 2017, additional acreage of the subject property began to be used for agricultural purposes, i.e., the raising of free range livestock and an increase in land area devoted to produce production. The evidence also established that fences were added to some parts of the subject property to aid in the use of the land for agricultural purposes. Such improvements could lead to a change in the classification of the subject property for tax year 2018.