Rossow v. Van Meter

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

SCOTT ROSSOW,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.)Appeal Number 07-45019

)

SCOT VAN METER, ASSESSOR,)

BUCHANAN COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

The decision of the assessor, affirmed by the Board of Equalization, setting value at $120,000 (assessed value $40,000) is SET ASIDE.Commission sets market value at $95,000 (assessed value $31,670).

ISSUE

The issue in this case is the true value in money, on January 1, 2007, of a 1977 Beechcraft Bonanza F33A airplane, Tail No. N45US.

SUMMARY

An evidentiary hearing was held on July 17, 2008, in the Buchanan County Courthouse before senior hearing officer Luann Johnson.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared by counsel, George Murray, Buchanan County Prosecutor.

EXHIBITS

The following exhibits were entered into the record:

Complainants’ Exhibit

Exhibit 1 –An “aircraft appraisal” dated December 3, 2007 by one Mike Williaford with an offer to purchase the airplane for $40,000.

Respondent’s Exhibits

Respondent presented no documents.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.Jurisdiction is proper.Complainant timely filed his appeal from the decision of the Buchanan County Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property is a 1977 Beechcraft Bonanza F33A.The average wholesale value of similar planes on January 1, 2007, was $120,000.

3.Complainant presented an “airplane appraisal” by one Mike Williaford showing the need for numerous repairs and indicating a retail value for the plane of $61,000.Specifically, the appraisal indicated:

a.The fact that the plane was originally sold to a foreign purchaser required a 10% deduction ($14,000);

 

b.      The plane needed an overhauled engine, propeller and accessories ($38,000);

 

c.       Labor to install the new equipment ($4,000);

 

d.      Prior hail damage required a 10% deduction ($14,000);

 

e.       The 30 year old interior needed replacing ($9,000).

 

Complainant’s evidence is not persuasive.Mr. Williaford was not present at the hearing and his conclusions could not be challenged by Respondent. We are not presented with Mr. Willaford’s qualifications and there is no evidence that Mr. Willaford ever inspected the airplane.And, while some of the condition factors referenced by Mr. Willaford’s appraisal are supported by Complainant’s document production, no evidence was presented which would allow the Commission to decide that these conditions are anything but average for this age and make of aircraft.Of all Complainant’s claims for adjustments, only the adjustment for engine replacement can be verified by industry standards.The Aircraft Bluebook verifies that the engine should have been overhauled at 1700 hours.The recommended cost for this overhaul, installed, is $25,000.

4.Complainant also argued that he was entitled to a reduced assessment because the aircraft was over 25 years old and had flown less than 50 hours during 2006.The documents presented by Complainant in response to Respondent’s request for production do not support a finding that the aircraft was flown less than 50 hours during 2006 and, therefore, Complainant is entitled to no reliefupon this claim.

5.The true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007, was $95,000 (assessed value $31,670).

<span
lang=EN-CA style=’mso-ansi-language:EN-CA’><span
style=’mso-spacerun:yes’> SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1<span
lang=EN-CA style=’mso-ansi-language:EN-CA’>CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

Highest and Best Use

True value in money is the fair market value of the property on the valuation date, and is a function of its highest and best use, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future.[1]

True Value in Money

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 purchased by one who is desiring to purchase but who is not compelled to do so.[2]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[3]

Taxpayer has Burden of Proof

The taxpayer in a Commission tax appeal bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was improperly valued.[4]

Taxpayers were the moving parties seeking affirmative relief, and as such, they bore the burden of proving the vital elements of their case, i.e., the assessments were “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”[5] To prevail, Taxpayers had to “present an opinion of market value and then … present substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on tax day.”[6]

Substantial and Persuasive Evidence

Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, i.e., evidence favoring facts which are such that reasonable men may differ as to whether it established them, and from which the Commission can reasonably decide an appeal on the factual issues.[7]

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.[8]

Comparable Sales Approach

The comparable sales approach uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties.Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve property comparable in character.This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data is available to make a comparative analysis.[9]

DISCUSSION

In order to prevail on a claim of overvaluation, Complainant must present an opinion of value and then present substantial and persuasive evidence tending to demonstrate that his opinion of value is supported by market evidence.Complainant has failed to meet this burden of proof.Because we have access to the Aircraft Bluebook, we can calculate the reduction in value due to the need for an engine overhaul.However, there is absolutely no market data to support any of Complainant’s other requested adjustments.

<span
lang=EN-CA style=’mso-ansi-language:EN-CA’><span
style=’mso-spacerun:yes’> SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1<span
lang=EN-CA style=’mso-ansi-language:EN-CA’>ORDER

The assessed value determined by the Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE.The Clerk is ORDERED to place a new value of $95,000 (assessed value $31,670), on the books for tax years 2007.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.

If an application for review of a hearing officer decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission.If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Buchanan 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.If any protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

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 August 22, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Luann Johnson

Senior Hearing Officer

 

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 22^ndday of August, 2008, to:Scott Rossow, 2209 Ashland Avenue, St. Joseph, MO 64506, Complainant; George Murray, 507 Francis Street, Suite 222, St. Joseph, MO 64501, Attorney for Respondent; Scot VanMeter, Assessor, Buchanan County Courthouse, 411 Jules, Room 102, St. Joseph, MO 64501; Pat Conway, Clerk; Buchanan County Courthouse, 411 Jules, Room 121, St. Joseph, MO 64501; Peggy Campbell, Collector, Buchanan County Courthouse, 411 Jules, Room 123, St. Joseph, MO 64501.

 

_______________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator