Richard & Doris Cates v. Overkamp (Montgomery)

April 7th, 2011

State Tax Commission of Missouri





v.) Appeal Number 10-72501









The assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject motor vehicle for tax year 2010 is set at $19,860, personal property assessed value of $6,620.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared pro se.

Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.


Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the assessment of a 2008 Chevrolet Silverado Truck by the Assessor.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject motor vehicle on January 1, 2010.The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.


1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.The case was submitted on documents filed, in lieu of an evidentiary hearing.[1]

2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $19,860, a personal property assessment of $6,620.[2]

3.Subject Property.The subject property is a 2008 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 – V-8, Regular Cab LT 4WD, with VIN – 1GCEK14C48Z3212663.

4.Complainants’ Evidence.Complainants did not file any exhibits in response to the Commission Order.[3]Complainants did submit with the Complaint for Review of Assessment a number of documents which were marked with Letters as follows, which the Hearing Officer receives into the record as Complainants’ Exhibits.




Application for Title & License for Subject Vehicle


Bill of Sale for Complainants’ purchase of Subject Vehicle


Cash Receipt for Complainants’ purchase of Subject Vehicle


2009 Personal Property Assessment List for Complainants


2010 Personal Property Assessment List for Complainants

F for Subject Vehicle – dated 11/16/10

Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2010, to be $16,500, as proposed.

5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent submitted the following exhibits:




2010 Personal Property List – Richard & Doris Cates


Assessor’s Account 300106222 – Richard & Doris Cates


2010 – Missouri Assessor’s State Valuation Guide


October 2009 NADA Book – Chevrolet Trucks


Mo. Dept. of Revenue Vehicle Record on Subject Vehicle


October 2009 NADA Website Value for Subject Vehicle



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.[4]

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.[5]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.[6]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.[7]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[8]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[9]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.[10]

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, 2009.[11]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.”[12]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[13]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.[14]

Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof, in that no evidence relevant to a valuation of the subject motor vehicle as of January 1, 2010, was presented.Evidence of the December 2008 purchase at $23,100, less a $4,000 rebate, the 2009 assessment or a NADA value in November 2010 is not probative as to the sale price of the vehicle on January 1, 2010.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for Montgomery County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2010 is set at $6,620.

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. [15]

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Montgomery 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 7, 2011.



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 7thday of April, 2011, to:Richard Cates, 102 South Elm Street, Bellflower, MO 63333, Complainant; Lee Elliott, Prosecuting Attorney, 211 E. Third St., Montgomery City, MO 63361, Attorney for Respondent; Jerome Overkamp, Assessor, 211 E. Third Street, Montgomery City, MO 63361; Pam Cartee, Clerk, 211 E. Third St., Montgomery City, MO 63361; Anita Sullivan, Collector, 211 E. Third St., Montgomery City, MO 63361.


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


573-751-1341 Fax

[1] Order Setting Exhibit Exchange, dated 1/13/11

[2] This type of personal property is assessed at 33.3% of true value in money (fair market value)– Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo “…the assessor shall annually assess all personal property at thirty-three and one-third percent of its true value in money as of January first of each calendar year.”

[3] Order Setting Exhibit Exchange, dated 1/13/11.Parties were given until and including February 17, 2011, to file exhibits.

[4] Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.


[5] Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945

[6] Section 137.115.5, RSMo

[7] 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).


[8] 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).

[9] Hermel, supra.


[10] 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.


[11] Hermel, supra.


[12] 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).


[13] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.


[14] Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

[15] Section 138.432, RSMo