Robert & Ethel Kahn v. Boyer (Washington)

March 6th, 2012

State Tax Commission of Missouri





v.) Appeal No.11-92000










Assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Evidence did not provide basis for Hearing Officer to determine true value in money.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2011 is set at $64,400, assessed value of $12,240.

Complainants, Robert and Ethel Kahn, appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Prosecuting Attorney, Joshua Hedgecorth.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.


Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Washington County Assessor.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2011.The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.


1.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant presented the following Exhibits and testified in his own behalf.




2002 Tax Bill from Jefferson County


Photos of Subject Property


Complaint for Review of Assessment


Purchase Agreement for Subject


NADA Appraisal Guide


Certificate of Title


2005 Tax Receipt


2011 Tax Statement


Taxpayer’s Opinion of Value


Tax Receipts for 2011, 2008, 2006

Exhibits B, C, D, F, H, I and Tax Receipt for 2011 in Exhibit J were admitted into evidence.Respondent objected to Exhibit A based upon relevance and foundation and the objection was sustained.Respondent objected to Exhibit E based upon relevance, foundation, and hearsay and the objection was sustained.The NADA appraisal cannot be admitted into evidence without the appraiser being present to lay the foundation for the exhibit and be subject to cross-examination.Facially the appraisal is lacking because there is no condition adjustment, community adjustment, or model adjustment.Respondent objected to Exhibit G based upon relevance the objection was sustained. Respondent objected to part of Exhibit J – receipts for 2008 and 2006 – based upon relevance and the objection was sustained.

Mr. Kahn testified. He testified that the manufactured home was purchased in 2004 for $72,534.33.It is currently located on property they do not own.The dimensions of the home are 32 x 70 or a square foot total of 2,240.

2.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent presented the following exhibits:




Assessor’s Office 2012 Mobile Home Cost Approach to Value Guide


Property Record Card of Subject Property


Property Record Card of Comparable


Property Record Card of Comparable

All Exhibits were admitted into evidence and will be weighted in accordance with their relevance to the issue before the Commission.

Ms. Denise Walton testified in support of the Assessor’s value.Ms. Walton testified that Exhibit A is used to value all manufactured homes in the county.The guide is reviewed and updated. A valuation guide is used to establish uniformity in valuation.She identified Exhibit 2 as the property record card (PRC) for the subject property.The PRC for the subject property contains the valuation for 2011 and 2012 as the Assessor’s Office has begun their review of assessments for 2012.The PRC shows a total square footage for the property of 2,432.The subject property also has a wood deck of approximately 480 square feet.

The Assessor’s cost manual for the mobile home valued the property at $34.10 per square feet for the manufactured home with a percent good factor of 75% resulting in a value by the cost approach of $62,200.The Assessor’s cost manual for wood decks value the improvement at $5.83 per square foot with a percent good factor of 80% resulting in a value by the cost approach of $2,240.The total valuation using the Assessor’s cost approach to valuation for the subject property in 2011 is $64,440.

Ms. Walton identified Exhibits 3 and 4 to demonstrate how the cost manual determined values on similar properties.


1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission after notice of the valuation of the property was received.A hearing was conducted on February 29, 2012, at the Washington County Courthouse, Potosi, Missouri.

2.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 14912 Delbridge Road, Potosi, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 22-5.0-016-000-000-010.00T01.The property consists of a manufactured home purchased in 2004 with a total square footage between 2,240 – 2,432 in total area.The home also has a wood deck of approximately 480 square feet. There was no sale of the property noted within three years prior to the tax date of January 1, 2011.

3.Assessment.The assessor appraised the property at $64,400, assessed value of $12,240 using a cost approach to value.

4.True Value and Assessed Value.Evidence by the Complainant was presented for the purpose of rebutting the presumption of correct assessment however the evidence did not provide a basis for Hearing Officer to determine true value in money.



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.[1]

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.[2]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.[3]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.

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[4]It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the County’s valuation is erroneous and what fair market value should have been placed on the property.[5]

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

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.[10]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.[11]

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, 2011.[12]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.”[13]A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[14]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.[15]

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[16]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[17]In this instance, the opinion of value of Mr. Kahn was based upon passed assessments of the County and other counties.The valuations and assessments in prior years and in other counties does not establish the market value of the property as of January 1, 2011.Mr. Kahn also presented the NADA Appraisal Guide.However, without the appraiser present and subject to cross-examination, the information cannot be admitted into evidence.Even if the appraisal guide was admitted into evidence, the Hearing Officer is left with speculation as the guide does not adjust for condition, time, etc.The appraisal is dated December 14, 2011.

The Complainant had the burden of providing substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2011.[18] Since the evidence presented did not provide substantial and persuasive evidence of market value, the valuation determined by the County stands.

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Complainant having failed to carry his burden of proof, there is no need to perform a review and analysis of Respondent’s evidence.Respondent had no burden of proof in the appeal.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $12,240.

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.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. [19]

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Washington 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 March 6, 2012.



Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 6thday of March, 2012, to:Robert Kahn, 14912 Delbridge Rd., Potosi, MO 63664, Complainant; Joshua Hedgecorth, Prosecuting Attorney, 102 N. Missouri Street, Potosi, MO 63664, Attorney for Respondent; Charlotte Boyer, Assessor; 102 N. Missouri Street, Potosi, MO 63664; Jeanette Allen, Clerk, 102 N. Missouri Street, Potosi, MO 63664; Michael McGirl, Collector, 102 N. Missouri Street, Potosi, MO 63664.


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


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

[3] Section 137.115.5, RSMo

[4] 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)


[5] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)


[6] 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).


[7] 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).

[8] Hermel, supra.


[9] 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.


[10] See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra;Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).


[11] 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).


[12] Hermel, supra.


[13] 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).


[14] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.


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


[16] 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).


[17] Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).


[18] Hermel, supra.


[19] Section 138.432, RSMo.