State Tax Commission of Missouri
v.)Appeal Number 09-91000
WENDY NORDWALD, ASSESSOR,)
WARREN COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On February 26, 2010, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Warren County Board of Equalization.
Complainant timely filed (March 26, 2010) his Application for Review of the Decision.Respondent was given until and including May 3, 2010 to file Response.Respondent elected to not file a Response.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Upon Review
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but 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.
The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert or lay witness and give it as much weight and credit as he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts or owners who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part.
The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.
A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer.A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.
The Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Complainant.
Complainant’s Points on Review
Complainant presents eighteen separate points for consideration in his Application for Review.The Commission notes that only Points 1, 4 and 15 relate to the Hearing Officer’s conduct of the evidentiary hearing.Points 16 and 17 relate to Complainant’s claim of discrimination.The remaining thirteen claims fall in the category of argument relative to the appraisal presented on behalf of the Respondent.
Point 1 – Time to Review Dodd Appraisal
The first point raised by Mr. Jepsen is that the Hearing Officer erred in allowing Complainant only 15 minutes to review the 36 page appraisal of Donald Dwain Dodd, State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser.The conduct of evidentiary hearings before the Commission is within the sound discretion of the hearing officer presiding at the hearing.The Commission is aware that often in pro se residential appeals that neither the Complainant nor the Respondent has access to the exhibits the other will be presenting prior to the commencement of the hearing.
Although the Dodd appraisal contained a total of 36 pages, the actual substantive portions of the appraisal upon which a conclusion of value was founded consist of only eleven pages on which are found the cost and sales comparison approaches to value.In allowing the taxpayer time to review Exhibit A, the Hearing Officer specifically pointed out to Mr. Jepsen that he should review the cost and sales comparison approaches in preparation for his cross-examination.The Commission does not find it an abuse of the Hearing Officer’s discretion to have allowed 15 minutes for the taxpayer to review the Dodd appraisal, following having heard the direct examination of Mr. Dodd.More importantly, a review of the record supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusions that Mr. Jepsen failed to meet his burden of proof on either his claim of overvaluation or discrimination.Therefore, irrespective of how much time the Hearing Officer might have allowed the taxpayer for review of Exhibit A, it would not change the fact Complainant failed to make his case.
The Hearing Officer did not err or abuse his discretion in allowing only fifteen minutes for Complainant’s review of Exhibit A.
Point 4 – Exclusion of Architectural Drawing
During cross-examination of Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jepsen referred to an architect’s drawing of the subject home and inquired as to the square footage of the home.Mr. Jepsen did not request that the drawing be marked as an exhibit.Mr. Jepsen did not offer the drawing into evidence.Objection was made to certain questions posed by the taxpayer based on a lack of foundation with regard to the drawing.Since no offer was made to introduce the drawing into evidence as an exhibit, the Hearing Officer made no ruling on its admissibility per se.
Counsel for Respondent noted in her objection that it had not been established that the structure as it existed on January 1, 2009, would be the same as the architectural drawing and that the architect was not present to testify concerning the drawing.The architectural drawing was hearsay and without the drafter of the drawing present to testify as to the similarity between the drawing and the actual construction of the subject as it existed on January 1, 2009, any arguments regarding differences in square footage of the structure would be conjecture at best.
The Commission finds no error in the Hearing Officer’s sustaining of the objection relative to questions based upon the drawing.
Point 5 – Denial of Requests To Have Assessor Provide Information
Complainant asserts that the Hearing Officer denied his requests to require the Assessor to provide the information contained in excluded exhibits 4 and 5.The Commission finds no error on the part of the Hearing Officer.Complainant’s Request for Production was served on October 21, 2009.On October 29, 2009, Respondent filed her Objections to the Request for Production.On November 3, 2009, Complainant filed his Motion to Compel.On
November 12, 2009, Respondent filed Objections to Motion to Compel Responses.
By Order issued November 12, 2009, the Hearing Officer issued his Order Sustaining the Objections to Request for Production and Denying Motion to Compel.The Hearing Officer concluded that the documents requested were public records available for inspection and copying by Complainant at the office of the Assessor and that it would be unduly burdensome to require the Assessor to transport or copy all of the public records requested and deliver them to Complainant’s office.The Commission finds no basis to conclude that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion in sustaining Respondent’s objections and denying Complainant’s Motion to Compel.
Points 16 & 17 – Discrimination Claim
These two arguments go to the claim of discrimination presented by Complainant.The Hearing Officer properly found that Complainant had not presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the subject property was being assessed at a ratio greater than 19% of its true value in money or at a ratio greater than the average residential assessment ratio for Warren County for 2009.The Hearing Officer addressed in detail Complainant’s failure to prove discrimination as a matter of law.Critical to Complainant’s failure was the fact that the average residential assessment ratio for Warren County for 2009 was not established based upon a statistically valid sampling of residential properties.Furthermore, the Hearing Officer instructed Mr. Jepsen relative to the evidentiary burden required to establish the average residential assessment ratio for Warren County to prove a claim of discrimination.To the extent that the points argued and asserted in items 16 and 17 raise a claim of error on the part of the Hearing Officer relative to his ruling on the claim of discrimination, the points are not well taken.
The points raised argue from facts not in evidence.Irrespective of that critical element, even assuming that the asserted claims had been established on the record in the evidentiary hearing, the information falls far short of the case law requirements to establish inequity in the assessment of Complainant’s property or residential property in general in Warren County.The Hearing Officer properly found that Complainant had failed to prove discrimination in the assessment of the property under appeal.
Points Argued Against Dodd Appraisal
The remaining arguments advanced by the taxpayer all relate to various items contained in the Dodd appraisal report to which Mr. Jepsen takes exception.It is unnecessary for the Commission to address these items one by one.It is sufficient to note that Complainant failed to make a prima facie case to establish the fair market value of the subject property.The opinion of value offered in the Complaint for Review of assessment by the owner was $340,000.At hearing the opinion of value was changed to a range of $300,000 to $350,000.However, none of these opinions of value were established by any recognized appraisal methodology.Irrespective of the asserted problems in the Dodd appraisal, Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof.
In summary, if Respondent had simply elected to not present any evidence in this particular appeal, Complainant would not have prevailed.Respondent had no burden of proof in the appeal, Complainant did.Therefore, even assuming without finding, that some or all of the issues asserted with regard to the Dodd appraisal might have substance, they establish no error on the part of the Hearing Officer in his conclusion that the taxpayer failed to meet his burden of proof.
The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.The Decision and Order of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the Commission.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.
If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.
If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Warren County, 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.
SO ORDERED July 21, 2010.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Jeff W. Schaeperkoetter, Commissioner
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the Warren County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $404,350, residential assessed value of $73,690, agricultural assessed value of $1,980, total assessed value of $75,670.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Kate Busch, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the Warren 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 residential portion of the subject property on January 1, 2009.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 Warren County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on February 10, 2010, at the Warren County Courthouse, Warrenton, Missouri.
2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property for the 2009 assessment at $387,830 – residential value, assessment of $73,690 and $16,520 – agricultural value, assessment of $1,980.The total appraised value of $404,350, total assessed value of $75,670.The Board of Equalization sustained the Assessor’s assessment.The agricultural portion of Complainant’s property is not under appeal.
3.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 27325 Garland Woods Drive, Warrenton, Missouri. The property is identified by map parcel number 6-3-1.024.The property consists of 50.33 acres.Five acres were assessed as the residential portion of the total property.The subject property is improved by a structure on which construction began in approximately 1999.The construction quality is very good.The condition of the home is average.The home contains 4,342 square feet of gross living area, with 3,133 square feet of unfinished basement area.There is a five-car attached garage.The home is incomplete.
4.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant testified in his own behalf.He stated his opinion of the fair market value of the subject property to be $300,000 – $350,000.This was based upon a refinance appraisal done in March, 2009, and the home’s unfinished condition.
The following exhibits were offered into evidence on behalf of Complainant:
Assessor’s Change Notice
Board of Equalization Appeal
Board of Equalization Decision
Assessment Data on Various Properties
Valuation and Sales Data on Various Properties
Photographs of Subject
Counsel for Respondent objected to Exhibits 4 and 5.Objections were sustained.See, Ruling on Objections, infra.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.
Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2009, to be $300,000 – $350,000, as proposed.Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish that the subject property was being assessed at a ratio greater than 19% of its true value in money or at a ratio greater than the average residential assessment ratio for Warren County for 2009.See, Complainant Fails To Prove Value, infra.
Complainant testified that some electrical work, hanging of drywall and painting had been done during 2009.Testimony was insufficient to establish that such work was significant enough that the market would recognize a difference value for 2010.Therefore, the value for 2009, remains the value for 2010.
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent presented the testimony of State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Donald Dwain Dodd.The Dodd appraisal report was received into evidence.Mr. Dodd appraised the subject property under both the cost and sales comparison approaches.The indicated value under the cost approach was $550,000.The indicated value under the sales comparison approach was $380,000.Mr. Dodd concluded on a value of $400,000, placing greatest reliance on the sale comparison approach.Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to affirm the original assessment made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of $387,830 on the subject property.See, Respondent’s Evidence Supports Board Value, infra.
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.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence.A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary.In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board, even if simply to sustain the value made by the Assessor, is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer, or respondent when advocating a value different than that determined by the Board, 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.Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidenced to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board on either the claim of overvaluation or discrimination.Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of the valuation on the residential portion of Complainant’s property and to establish the value as of January 1, 2009.
Ruling on Objections
Exhibit 4 – Assessment Data on Various Properties
Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit 4 – a spread sheet listing 30 properties and appraised values purported to be from records in the office of the Warren County Assessor.The document provided addresses of the properties, acreage, sold prices (for 3 properties), appraised values for various assessment years from 2001.Complainant provided nothing from this document to establish his opinion of value.
Counsel for Respondent objected on the ground of relevancy and lack of foundation.The objection was sustained.The exhibit was excluded from evidence.There was no foundation to establish the comparability of any of the three sale properties to the subject property.There was no information to establish the actual assessment of any of the properties as residential or residential and agricultural.Therefore, the tendered exhibit is irrelevant to establish the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2009.
To the extent it was offered to establish a claim of discrimination, it totally fails to comport to the evidence required to prove a claim of inequitable assessment, i.e. discrimination.has no probative value.See, Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination, infra. The proper foundation to utilize these properties to establish the residential assessment ratio for 2009 was
not made.Because the exhibit does not meet the necessary standard to make a discrimination case it has no probative value.It is irrelevant.
Exhibit 4 is maintained in the case file, but it is not part of the evidentiary record upon which a determination of value or discrimination can be made.
Exhibit 5 – Valuation and Sales Data on Various Properties
Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit 5 – a spread sheet listing 20 properties, with sale dates and prices, purported to be obtained from a Multi-List Service, and appraised values purported to be from records in the office of the Warren County Assessor.Complainant offered this in support of his claim of discrimination, asserting that properties sold for value greater than the appraised values placed on the properties by the Assessor.Counsel for Respondent objected on the ground of relevancy and lack of foundation.The objection was sustained.The exhibit was excluded from evidence.
Like Exhibit 4, this document does not meet the required standard of evidence to establish the assessment ratios on any of these properties, or the assessment ratio for 2009 for residential property in Warren County.See, Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination, infra.Therefore, having no probative value on the claim of discrimination it is irrelevant.
Exhibit 5 is maintained in the case file, but it is not part of the evidentiary record upon which a determination of value or discrimination can be made.
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 did not present an opinion of value base upon a recognized approach to determining value for real property for ad valorem tax purposes.Respondent’s appraiser relied upon both the cost approach and sales comparison approach to arrive at an opinion of value for the subject property.
Complainant Fails To Prove Value
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, 2009.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.
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.”
Mr. Jepsen failed to present any evidence from which a conclusion of the fair market value on January 1, 2009 could be drawn.Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 6 provide no information that a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to a value between $300,000 and $350,000 for the residential property on the valuation date.Even excluded Exhibits 4 and 5, which were offered in support of the claim of discrimination, provide no grounds to find fair market value.The March 2009 refinance appraisal was not tendered, nor was the appraiser who performed that appraisal present to testify, so any conclusion of value based on that document can bear no probative weight.In short, the Hearing Officer has nothing but conjecture, speculation and surmise to conclude a value in the range presented by the taxpayer.This will not support a decision in this appeal.Complainant’s opinion was not established to be based upon proper elements or a proper foundation.No probative weight can be accorded the owner’s opinion.
Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof on the issue of overvaluation.
Complainant Fails To Prove Discrimination
Elements to Prove Inconsistence in Valuation
In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, (i.e. inequitable assessment or lack of consistence in valuation), the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2009; 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.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.The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive.No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination.
Assessment of Subject Property
Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainant has the burden to prove the level of assessment for the subject property in 2009.
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.
Average Assessment Ratio
Complainant must then prove the average 2009 residential assessment for Warren County.This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Warren 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. The difference between the actual assessment level of the subject property and the average level of assessment for all residential property, taken from a sufficient representative sample in Warren County must demonstrate a disparity that is grossly excessive.
Complainant’s Evidence Insufficient
Complainant’s discrimination claim fails because of the failure to establish the market value of the property under appeal.Without establishing market value for the subject property, the assessment ratio for the property cannot be calculated.Without establishing that ratio, it cannot establish that the subject is being assessed at a higher percentage of market value that any other property.
However, even if Complainant had established market value for the subject property, the discrimination claim would still fail because it was not demonstrated that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Warren County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than the subject property.Exhibits 4 and 5 were totally insufficient as evidence required to establish a statistically significant number of properties representative of residential properties in Warren County.The documents did not establish the mean or median assessment ratio for 2009.The information contained therein related to only a very limited area of the County, and did not account for the various strata of residential properties within the entire County.
Complainant failed to establish the 2009 assessment ratio for the property under appeal.Complainant failed to establish the 2009 residential assessment ratio for Warren County.Therefore, there is no way in which the Hearing Officer can conclude that the difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the residential assessment ratio in Warren County is grossly excessive.
Respondent’s Evidence Supports Board Value
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law.The Dodd appraisal presented substantial and persuasive evidence of the fair market value of the subject property as of the valuation date.
Both approaches to value were well presented.The appraisal problem presented was unusual given the nature of the subject improvement being a ten year work in progress.This assignment warranted the development of the cost approach to establish the upper range of value.Mr. Dodd’s analysis under that approach was well developed.As is always the case with the cost approach, the devil is in the depreciation.The appraiser presented his reasoning for the depreciation adjustments which he made.Notwithstanding, that the depreciation factors were calculated based on recognized standards for development in the cost approach, the Hearing Officer is not persuaded that the combined physical and functional depreciation amounts captured all of what the market would recognize or allow for this particular property.
Sales Comparison Approach
The Hearing Officer was struck by the fact that the sales comparison approach on its own would only support a range of values from $365,475 to $411,360, with the median adjusted value being $378,350.This is just 2.4% below the value originally set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.The appraiser’s conclusion of value under the sales comparison approach was $380,000.This opinion of value falls only 2% below the value determined by the Board.The Hearing Officer agrees with Mr. Dodd that the cost approach suggests “the upper limit of estimated value for the subject property.”Sales data that leads the appraiser to conclude a value within 2% of the Board value does not demonstrate to the Hearing Officer that the presumption of correct assessment by the Board has been rebutted.After a detailed review of both approaches presented in the Dodd appraisal, the Hearing Officer finds the sales comparison analysis and conclusion more probative.The sales comparison evidence, although varying slightly from the Assessor/Board’s value of $387,830, is strongly supportive of that value.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Warren County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $75,670, residential assessed value of $73,690, agricultural assessed value of $1,980.
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.
The Collector of Warren 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 February 26, 2010.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
 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).
 St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).
 Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).
 Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
 The residential portion of Complainant’s property is hereinafter referred to as the Complainant’s property, subject property or property under appeal – five acre homesite and the residential improvements thereon.
 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 SW3d 645, 649 (Mo.App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 SW2d 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).
 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).
 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).
 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 he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may accept it in part or reject it in part.St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).