State Tax Commission of Missouri
ROBERT & ILENE JENKINS,)
)
Complainants,)
)
v. ) Appeal No.11-10445
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization, and to prove the true value in money for their property as of January 1, 2011.
True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $940,000, residential assessed value of $178,600.
Complainants appeared Pro Se.
Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Paula J. Lemerman.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the St. Louis 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, 2011, and whether there was an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than the average assessment ratio for St. Louis County for 2011.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.Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.
2.Evidentiary Hearing.The Evidentiary Hearing was held on November 1, 2012, at the St. Louis County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
3.Subject Property.The subject property is identified by locator number 18K520206.The property is located at 8307 Kingsbury Blvd., Clayton, Missouri.A complete description of the property is provided in Exhibit 1.
3.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the subject property at $940,000, a residential assessed value of $178,600.[1]The Board sustained the assessment.[2]
4.Complainants’ Evidence.Complainants filed the following exhibits in support of their claims of overvaluation and discrimination:
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Assessor’s Data – Subject |
|
B |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 200 Topton Way |
|
C |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 8327 Kingsbury |
|
D |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 211 Topton Way |
|
E |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 219 Topton Way |
|
F |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 301 N. Forsyth Blvd. |
|
G |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 15 Upper Price Rd |
|
H |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 9 Suffield |
|
I |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 43 Conway Close Rd. |
|
J |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 49 Conway Close Rd. |
|
K |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 126 Topton Way |
|
L |
Assessor’s Data – 311 N. Forsyth Blvd. |
|
M |
Complainants’ Valuation Methodology Summary |
Counsel for Respondent made no objection to Exhibits A through L on the basis that the exhibits were offered and received only for the purpose of confirming the Assessor’s appraised values and the sale prices of the properties shown in Exhibits B through L.
Objection was made as to lack of foundation for the information contained in Exhibit M that went beyond the Assessor’s appraised values and sale prices.Objection was overruled, as the Exhibits had only been received to provide the basis for Complainant’s calculation of a per square foot of living area appraised value for each property, and that Respondent would be permitted to offer rebuttal exhibits to address the point raised.Exhibits A through M were received into the record.
There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012, therefore the assessed value for 2011 remains the assessed value for 2012.[3]
Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.See, Presumption in Appeal, and Methods of Valuation, infra.Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2011, to be $775,000.See, Complainants Fail to Prove Value, infra.Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to prove discrimination or inequitable valuation.See, Complainants Fail to Prove Discrimination, infra.
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent submitted the appraisal report (Exhibit1) and the testimony of Ross Hackman.[4]Mr. Hackman concluded a value of $1,045,100 for the property under appeal.The Hackman appraisal was accepted only to sustain the assessed value of $178,600 and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that amount.See, Evidence of Increase in Value, infra.
Complainants objected to Exhibit 1 on the basis of Comp 1 in the appraisal having been sold after the date of 1/1/11.Objection was overruled.An appraiser may use sales of properties which occur after the valuation date, since the appraisal was a retrospective appraisal.
Complainants also objected to Exhibit 1 on the ground of inaccuracies in the appraisal regarding Comp 1.Objection was overruled.The objection went to the weight that should be given the appraisal, as opposed to its admissibility.
Complainants finally objected to Exhibit 1 based on differences between the Comp 2 and 3 properties and the subject.Objection was overruled.The objection went to the weight that should be given the appraisal, as opposed to its admissibility.
6.Complainants’ Rebuttal Exhibits.Complainants offered into evidence Rebuttal Exhibits N, O and P.[5]Rebuttal Exhibits N & P addressed the factors which formed the basis for their objections to Comp 1 of Exhibit 1.Rebuttal Exhibit O addressed the factors which formed the basis for their objections to Comps 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1.
Exhibits N, O and P were received so that Complainants’ objections to Exhibit 1 would be accurately set forth in the record.Exhibits N, O and P did not provide any basis for the exclusion of Exhibit 1.The Rebuttal Exhibits went to the weight that could be given Exhibit 1 and established no legal basis for the exclusion of the appraisal report.
7.Respondent’s Rebuttal Exhibits.Respondent offered into evidence the following Rebuttal Exhibits:
|
REBUTTAL EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
2 |
Summary Information on Exhibits A – L |
|
3 |
Property Record Card – 200 Topton Way |
|
4 |
Property Record Card – 8327 Kingsbury |
|
5 |
Property Record Card & other documents – 211 Topton Way |
|
6 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 219 Topton Way |
|
7 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 301 N. Forsyth Blvd. |
|
8 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 15 Upper Price Rd |
|
9 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 9 Suffield |
|
10 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 43 Conway Close Rd. |
|
11 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 49 Conway Close Rd. |
|
12 |
MLS/Assessor’s Data – 126 Topton Way |
|
13 |
Assessor’s Data – 311 N. Forsyth Blvd. |
The Rebuttal Exhibits were received into evidence.The Rebuttal Exhibits challenged the comparability of the 11 properties Complainants had relied upon in their valuation methodology.
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.[6]
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.[7]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.[8]
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[9]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.
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 the fair market value of the property as of the valuation date.[10]Upon a failure of Complainant to rebut the presumption of correct assessment, the assessed value set by the Board stands.As will be addressed below, Complainants evidence failed to rebut the presumption of correct assessment, and to establish what the fair market value of the property was as of January 1, 2011.
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.[11]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[12]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[13]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.[14]
Respondent’s appraiser concluded value under the Standard for Valuation.[15]Complainants’ methodology to arrive at an opinion of value was not a value established under the Standard for Valuation.Complainants reliance upon the average per square foot appraised value as determined by the Assessor for eleven properties fails to base value upon sales of the those properties, as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under the conditions set forth.
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.[16]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.[17] The sales comparison approach is generally the appraisal methodology that is applied to owner occupied properties.Respondent’s appraiser properly developed the market approach to value.Complainants did not provide a conclusion of value derived from any recognized appraisal methodology.Complainant’s failed to prove that their methodology of averaging per square foot appraised values derived from assessment records did in fact establish the fair market value of their property.
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.[18]
Mr. Hackman possessed the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to testify as an expert on the valuation of the subject property.[19]The data upon which the appraiser based his opinion of value were of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of residential real estate appraisals in St. Louis County and is deemed to be otherwise reliable.
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.[20]There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission appeal 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.”[21]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.[22]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.[23]
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.[24]The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.[25]When an owner presents an opinion of value that is derived from some theory that falls outside recognized appraisal methodologies, the opinion of value is based upon improper elements and an improper foundation.Accordingly, the conclusion of value tendered by Complainants of $775,000 has no probative value.It can be given no evidentiary weight.
Complainants’ Valuation Methodology
Complainants selected eleven properties that had sold during 2009 and 2010.They then researched the Assessor’s records to ascertain the appraised values for these properties for the 2011 – 2012 assessment.The per square foot of living area appraised values were calculated and then averaged.[26]This resulted in an average of the Assessor’s appraised values of $235 per square foot.The taxpayers then multiplied the living area of the subject (3,219) times $235 to arrive at their proposed value.
No evidence was provided to establish that this methodology has been recognized and accepted for the appraisal of residential real property for ad valorem tax purposes.It has never been accepted by the Commission or any Missouri court.Averaging of sales prices or assessor’s appraised values does not constitute a proper method of valuation.[27]
Complainants failed to present any evidence from which it can be determined that the value set by the Board was in error.Accordingly, the presumption of correct assessment was not rebutted.Additionally, the Complainants’ conclusion of a value having been calculated from a methodology not accepted as proper appraisal practice failed to prove that the proposed value represented the fair market value of the subject property as of 1/1/11.Having failed to meet their burden of proof, the Board’s assessment must be affirmed.
Complainants Fail to Prove Discrimination
In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination or a claim of inequitable assessment, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property as of the valuation date; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction.[28]Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination.Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.[29]No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.[30]
Therefore, in the present appeal, Complainants must first prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2011. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor’s office.This will establish the actual assessment ratio for the Complainant’s property.Complainants’ discrimination claim fails because they did not establish the market value of their property.Without establishing their market value, they cannot establish their assessment ratio.Without establishing their ratio, they cannot establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value that any other property.
If Complainants had established their assessment ratio, they must then prove the average level of assessment for residential property in St. Louis County for 2011.This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in St. Louis County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the assessor’s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.
Even if Complainants had established their market value, their discrimination claim would still fail because they have not demonstrated that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within St. Louis Countyare being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than their property.Complainants’ claim of discrimination is based upon seven properties located in Clayton, one in Olivette, one in Creve Coeur, and two in Ladue.The subject is located in Clayton.
No evidence was presented that would establish that these eleven properties represent a statistically significant number of the residential properties within St. Louis County.In other words, these eleven properties fail to provide a basis upon which the mean or median St. Louis County residential assessment ratio for 2011 can be established.Furthermore, Complainants’ evidence failed to establish the fair market values of the eleven properties as of 1/1/11.Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain the assessment ratios for each of the eleven properties.Accordingly, Complainants cannot establish even the mean and median of this unrepresentative sample of St. Louis County residential properties.
Because Complainants have failed to establish the market value of their property and have failed to establish that they are being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other properties in St. Louis County, they have failed to prove their claim of an inequitable assessment (discrimination) of the subject property.
Evidence of Increase in Value
In a case such as this, where the taxpayer fails to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the valuation determined by the Board is in error, there is no need to evaluate and analyze the evidence placed in the record by Respondent.Suffice it to say that Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to both rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the fair market value of the subject property to be $1,045,100.
However, in any case in St. Louis County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal.[31]Therefore, under the Commission rule just cited and Supreme Court decision[32] the assessed value cannot be increased above $178,600 in this particular appeal.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $178,600.
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. [33]
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of St. Louis 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 14, 2012.
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 14th day of November, 2012, to:Robert Jenkins, 8307 Kingsbury Blvd., Clayton, MO 63105, Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Eugene Leung, Director of Revenue, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.
___________________________
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
[1] Residential property is assessed at 19% of its appraised value (true value in money, fair market value) – Section 137.115.5, RSMo
[2] BOE Decision Letter, dated 9/23/11, filed with Complaint for Review of Assessment; Exhibit 1 – Assessment Information and Tax Data,Addendum Page 1 of 4
[5] Rebuttal Exhibit N – two page document prepared by Complainants addressing time of sale and amenity issues with Comp 1.Rebuttal Exhibit O – one page document prepared by Complainants addressing amenity issues with Comp 2 & 3.Rebuttal Exhibit P – three page document – MLS data sheet used by Mr. Hackman for Comp 1.
[9] 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)
[10] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)
[11] 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).
[12] 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).
[14] 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.
[15] Exhibit 1- Definition of Value & Definition of “True Value in Money” as set forth by the State of Missouri, Page 4 of 4.
[16] 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).
[17] 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).
[18] 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).
[19] Exhibit 1 – Professional Qualifications; Tr. X. Mr. Hackman has previously been recognized and has testified as an expert witness in numerous appeals of residential properties before the Commission.
[21] 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).
[22] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.
Substantial and persuasive evidence is not an extremely high standard of evidentiary proof.It is the lowest of the three standards for evidence (substantial & persuasive, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt).It requires a small amount of evidence to cross the threshold to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.The definitions, relevant to substantial evidence, do not support a position that substantial and persuasive evidence is an extremely or very high standard.
“Substantial evidence: Evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; evidence beyond a scintilla.”Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 580.
The word scintilla is defined as “1. a spark,2. a particle; the least trace.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.Black’s definition at 1347 is “A spark or trace <the standard is that there must be more than a scintilla of evidence>.”There must be more than a spark or trace for evidence to have attained the standard of substantial.Once there is something more than a spark or trace the evidence has reached the level of substantial.Substantial evidence and the term preponderance of the evidence are essentially the same.“Preponderance of the evidence.The greater weight of the evidence; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”Black’s at 1201.Substantial evidence is that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.Preponderance is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, i.e. support the proposed conclusion.
[24] 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).
[25] 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).
[26] The living areas of the eleven properties range in size from +64 square feet to +2768 square feet larger than the subject.Only two of the properties were within 500 square feet of the subject’s living area.Four of the properties were in excess of 1816 square feet larger than the subject’s living area.It is doubtful that nine of the properties would have been utilized by an appraiser as comparable sales due to their significantly larger livings area.
[27] Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (1982), p.159.
[32]The Supreme Court of Missouri has interpreted Section 138.060.The Court stated:
“Section 138.060 prohibits an assessor from advocating for or presenting evidence advocating for a higher ‘valuation’ than the ‘value’ finally determined by the assessor. … . Because the legislature uses the singular terms ‘valuation’ and ‘value’ in the statute, however, it clearly was not referring to both true market value and assessed value.While the assessor establishes both true market value and assessed value, which are necessary components of a taxpayer’s assessment, as noted previously, the assessed value is the figure that is multiplied against the actual tax rate to determine the amount of tax a property owner is required to pay.The assessed value is the ‘value that is finally determined’ by the assessor for the assessment period and is the value that limits the assessor’s advocacy and evidence.Section 138.060.By restricting the assessor from advocating for a higher assessed valuation than that finally determined by the assessor for the relevant assessment period, the legislature prevents an assessor from putting a taxpayer at risk of being penalized with a higher assessment for challenging an assessor’s prior determination of the value of the taxpayer’s property.”State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC et al v. STC and Muehlheausler, 297 S.W.3d 80, 87-88 (Mo 8/4/09)