Robert Sexton v. James (Texas)

December 23rd, 2008

State Tax Commission of Missouri






v.) Appeal No.08-90022











Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization SET ASIDE.True Value in Money set at $38,000, assessed value of $7,220.Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared pro se.Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.


The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2007.


Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting the appraised value of the subject property at $45,493, assessed residential value of $8,640.


1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property is located at 924 Cedar Street, Cabool, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 30-1-12-2-2-2.

3.By Order issued November 3, 2008, appeal was set for evidentiary hearing at

2:30 p.m., Thursday, December 4, 2008, in the Texas County Courthouse, Houston, Missouri.Complainant did not appear.Respondent consented to the appeal being decided based on the documents filed by Complainant with the Complaint for Review of Assessment.

4.Complainant filed with Complaint for Review of Assessment a copy of Settlement Statement, dated August 29, 2007, for the purchase of the subject property for $38,000.Settlement Statement received as Exhibit A.

5.Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2007, to be $38,000.



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]

Hearing Officer Finds Value

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[2]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 what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.[3]Exhibit A constitutes substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment.

A price agreed to between a willing buyer and seller creates a presumption that the transaction was a market transaction.[4]Phoenix Redevelopment Corporation v. Walker, 812 S.W.2d 881, 883-4 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property.[5] The purchase of the property under appeal in August, 2007 was at a time relevant for valuation as of January 1, 2007.Complainant’s evidence established the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2007, to be $38,000.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $7,220.

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 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. [6]

The Collector of Texas County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a 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 23, 2008.


<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”

<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:207pt;

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 23rdday of December, 2008, to:Robert E. Sexton, 12445 Goldenrod Dr., Plato, MO 65552, Complainant; Mike Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, Texas County Courthouse Annex, 116 E. Main, Houston, MO 65483, Attorney for Respondent; Debbie James, Assessor, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Don Troutman, Clerk, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Tammy Cantrell, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Revenue, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483.




Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator




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


[2] 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).


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


[4] Phoenix Redevelopment Corporation v. Walker, 812 S.W.2d 881, 883-4 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).


[5] St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)


[6] Section 138.432, RSMo.