State Tax Commission of Missouri
v.) Appeal Number 10-90500
CHERI K ROBERTS, ASSESSOR,)
VERNON COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2010 is set at $13,340, residential assessed value of $2535.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared in person.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Assessor.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for 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 appealed to the State Tax Commission after receiving notice of valuation.A hearing was conducted on November 23, 2010, at the Vernon County Courthouse, Nevada, Missouri.
2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property under appeal at $86,000, a residential assessed value of $16,340.
3.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 18889 S 1256 Road, Nevada, Missouri.The property is identified by locator number 17 6.0 13 000 000 016.000.The property consists of a 1.6 acre lot.The lot was improved with mobile home, garage/lean-to, and a shed.Taxes had not been paid on the property for 2007, 2008, or 2009.On January 1st or 2nd, 2010, the mobile home on the property burned; parts of the deck and foundation remained. The shed had been removed.The garage/lean-to was in poor condition.
4.Complainant’s Evidence.Mr. Selsor testified in his own behalf.He purchased the property at the tax sale in August of 2010.He purchased the property for $4,909; the sum of the amount of tax dollars owed on the property.He stated that the garage was in poor condition. He had all improvements, or remnants of property, removed.
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Assessor Cheri Roberts testified.She testified that the Assessor’s Office valued the land at $10,700.She was unaware of the condition of the mobile home as she had not had access to the property.She testified that if improvements are in really poor condition, the Assessor’s Office values the improvement at $1 per square foot salvage value.Using the salvage value for the property, the mobile home would be valued at $2,240 and the garage would be valued at $400.
6.Assessed Value.The parties agreed that the fair market value of the 1.6 acre lot is $10,700.The parties agreed that the fair market value of the improvements was $2,640.The total valuation of the property is set at $13,340.The residential assessed value is $2,535.
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.
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.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.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.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.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2010 is set at $2535.
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 Vernon 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 December 7, 2010.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 7thday of December, 2010, to:Robert Selsor, 18853 S. 1256 Rd., Nevada, MO 64772, Complainant; Lynn Ewing, Prosecuting Attorney, 100 West Cherry, Suite 13, Nevada, MO 64772, Attorney for Respondent; Cherie Roberts, Assessor, 100 West Cherry, Suite 1, Nevada, MO 64772; Tammi Beach, Clerk, 100 West Cherry, Nevada, MO 64772; Phil Couch, Treasurer and ex officio Collector, 100 West Cherry, Nevada, MO 64772.
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
 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).
 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).