STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|SALVATOR J. GRILLO,||)
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-10438|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) is SET ASIDE. Complainant Salvator J. Grillo (Complainant) and Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by counsel Steve Robson.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $2,132,800, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE valued the subject property at $2,132,800, thereby sustaining Respondent’s valuation. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TMV for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on March 13, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 20L130153. It is further identified as 9850 Litzsinger Road, Ladue, St. Louis County, Missouri. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of 4.52 acres of land improved by a 6,615 square-foot (gross living area), single-family, two-story colonial-style home built in 1971. (Exhibit A; St. Louis County Records database) The home includes five bedrooms; seven full bathrooms; one half bathroom; three fireplaces; an attached four-car garage; an indoor racket ball court; two porches/patios; a concrete tennis court; an in-ground pool; and a brick exterior. (Exhibit A; St. Louis County Records database) Respondent assigned the home a grade factor of A+ and a condition/desireability/utility (CDU) rating of good. (St. Louis County Property Records Database)
- Assessment. Respondent set a TVM for the subject property of $2,132,800, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE set a TVM of the subject property at $2,132,800, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
- Complainants’ Evidence. Complainant opined that the TVM of the subject property was $1,200,000 as of January 1, 2017. To support his opinion of value, Complainant offered the following exhibits:
|Exhibit A||Appraisal Report of Residential Real Estate Appraiser Robert Hildebrand (Mr. Hildebrand) showing an appraised value of $1,200,000|
|Exhibit B||Residential Roof Report with detailed drawings and measurements of roof|
|Exhibit C||Sale listing dated March 12, 2018, for comparable property located at 11 Rauscher Drive, Ladue, Missouri, with a list price of $1,495,000; 3.36 acres; two-story 7,587 square-foot home built in 1966; seven bedrooms; eight bathrooms; updated interior finishes; in-ground pool and pool house|
|Exhibit D||Sale listing dated March 8, 2018, for comparable property located at 2 Tall Timbers Drive, Ladue, Missouri, with a list price of $1,795,000; 3.47 acres; two-story 7,176 square-foot home built in 2005; seven bedrooms; four full bathrooms; two half bathrooms; ultramodern design and architecture|
|Exhibit E1-E12||Maris/MLS data sheets for comparable properties close in proximity to subject property; some data sheets showed active listings while others showed sold listings|
|Exhibit F1-F3||Maris/MLS data sheets for vacant land sales/tear down properties close in proximity to subject property|
Respondent did not object to Complainant’s exhibits, all of which were admitted into the record.
Complainant testified that he had purchased the subject property in 2007 or 2008 for approximately $1,400,000. Complainant testified that the subject property had been listed with a realtor and that it had been publicly advertised. Complainant testified that the subject property was encumbered by a mortgage of approximately $630,000. Complainant testified that he had not listed it for sale within the three years preceding the evidentiary hearing and, if he were to list the subject property for sale, he would list it for at least $1,400,000. Complainant testified that two builders had made offers to purchase the subject property for $1,000,000, but he did not accept the offers. Complainant testified that the property had been appraised in the three years preceding the evidentiary hearing for $1,470,000. Complainant testified that he had not made any improvements to the subject property between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2017.
Complainant testified that the home’s first floor was underground because the house was cut into a hill. On cross-examination, Complainant testified that he had purchased the subject property as a foreclosure sale. Complainant testified that he bought the subject property thinking that the land could be subdivided but later learned that it could not be subdivided.
Complainant presented Exhibit A, the appraisal report of Mr. Hildebrand. Complainant also presented the testimony of his appraiser, Mr. Hildebrand. In his appraisal report, Exhibit 1, Mr. Hildebrand had concluded that the TVM of the subject property was $1,470,000, but he reduced the value to $1,200,000 “due to the needed roof replacement.” Mr. Hildebrand testified that the $270,000 reduction of the subject property’s value was necessary to account for the as-is condition of the roof, which was clay tile and “nicer than a composite roof.” Mr. Hildebrand testified that the adjustment was for a new slate roof. Exhibit B, the Residential Roof Report, provided detailed drawings and measurements of the roof but did not provide a cost estimate for the roof replacement or a bid from a roofing company or contractor and did not specify the type of roofing material that would be used. Mr. Hildebrand testified that the home had been described as a “partial earth contact” home because three sides of the main level of the home were below grade.
On cross examination, Mr. Hildebrand testified that the subject property was “odd” for the area. Nevertheless, Mr. Hildebrand believed the subject property’s highest and best use was its present use: a single-family residence and not a “tear down” property. Mr. Hildebrand testified that other sites in the area, which had formerly had 80 to 90 year-old homes on them, had been sold as “tear down” properties, but they were still vacant.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent advocated lowering the BOE’s determination of TVM to $1,840,000. To support his opinion of value, Respondent offered the following exhibit:
|Exhibit 1||Appraisal Report of Residential Real Estate Appraiser Barry A. Hough (Mr. Hough) valuing the subject property at $1,840,000, as residential, as of January 1, 2017|
Complainant did not object to Respondent’s exhibit, which was admitted into the record.
Exhibit 1 contained a grid comparing Mr. Hough’s chosen comparable properties to the subject property. The sale prices of the comparables ranged from $1,000,000 to $2,250,000. The sale dates of Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ranged from February 2015 to November 2015. Comparable No. 4 was an active listing. Mr. Hough made no market-based adjustments to Comparable Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Hough made a market-based positive adjustment to Comparable No. 3 in the amount of $580,000 because Comparable No. 3 had approximately 2.44 acres less land than the subject property. Mr. Hough made two market-based negative adjustments to Comparable No. 4 in the amount of $215,000 and $85,000, respectively, to account for Comparable No. 4’s status as an active listing and because it was a wooded lot. (Exhibit 1) The adjusted sale prices of the comparables in Exhibit 1 ranged from $1,580,000 to $1,950,000. (Exhibit 1)
In the addendum to the appraisal report, the Appraiser commented:
The subject property is located in the City of Ladue. Area is made up of primarily detached single family residences that are owner occupied. Area is fully developed with ranch, 1.5 and 2 story dwellings. There are a number of homes in the neighborhood that are purchased in order to tear down and build larger, more expensive homes.
. . .
A review of statistics in the subject neighborhood indicates property values were stable during the period from 1/01/15 to 01/01/17. The median and average marketing times for residential properties during this period were 39 and 69 days respectively.
. . .
A land appraisal was performed after an exterior inspection of the subject property from the street. It is my opinion that the subject property, if sold, would have been a “tear down” property due to its age, quality and size.
. . .
All of the comparable sales had existing homes at the time of sale. These homes have since been demolished. The photographs for the comparables comps show the lot after the existing structures, present at the time of sale, were demolished. Photographs of the properties as they existed at the time of sale were also included.
Due to their close proximity and similarity to the subject property most weight was given to Comparables 1 and 2. Comparables 3 and 4 are less similar and proximate to the subject and were given less weight in the analysis.
Respondent also presented the testimony of his appraiser, Mr. Hough. Mr. Hough testified that he had used the the comparative sales approach to arrive at an opinion that the subject property’s TVM was $1,840,000 as of January 1, 2017. The Appraiser testified that his research had determined that the highest and best use of the subject property was as a potential tear-down property due to the condition, size, and utility or function of the subject property.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – TVM Established. Complainant and Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. The evidence established that the TVM of the subject property was $1,470,000, as of January 1, 2017.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement. The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute, real property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification, or assessment of the property. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Id.
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. There also exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption. These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways.
The BOE presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.
The computer-assisted presumption only comes into play if the BOE lowered the value of the assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and it has not been shown that the assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer-assisted method. The BOE valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE determined the TVM of the subject property to be $2,132,800, thereby sustaining the initial valuation of Respondent, which was a result of a computer-assisted method of valuation. Both Complainant and Respondent are now seeking to lower the BOE’s valuation; therefore, the BOE presumption applies to Complainant and to Respondent. The computer-assisted presumption is not applicable in this case.
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness of assessment by the BOE. 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). This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – the complainant. When some substantial evidence is produced by the complainant, “however slight,” the presumption disappears, and the Hearing Officer, as trier of facts, receives the issue free of the presumption. United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678, 680-81 (Mo. App. 1983), citing to State ex rel. Christian v. Lawry, 405 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1966) (and cases therein cited). The presumption is not evidence of value. The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the BOE’s valuation is erroneous and the TVM that should have been placed on the property. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra. 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. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).
Upon Complainant’s presentation of Exhibit A, the BOE presumption in this appeal disappeared, and the Hearing Officer, as trier of facts, received the issue free of the presumption. The submission of Exhibit A, the appraisal report, performed by a state certified real estate appraiser established, prima facie, that the BOE’s value was in error. The appraisal opined a TVM that should have been placed on the property. However, Respondent also presented an appraisal report performed by a state certified real estate appraiser to establish a TVM different from Complainant’s TVM. Consequently, the opinions of the appraisers and the evidence supporting those opinions must be weighed.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC 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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
In this case, Complainant presented Mr. Hildebrand’s appraisal report, Exhibit A, to support an opinion that the subject property’s TVM was $1,200,000, as of January 1, 2017.
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, 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. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.
In this case, Respondent presented Mr. Hough’s appraisal report, Exhibit 1, to support his opinion that the subject property’s TVM was $1,840,000, as of January 1, 2017.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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. 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).
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 deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Both Complainant and Respondent presented the expert testimony of their appraisers along with the appraisers’ reports.
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. See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975). 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. 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. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.
“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “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. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “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.” Id.
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:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- 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.
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.
Highest and Best Use
TVM 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. Aspenhof Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 789 S.W. 2d 867, 869 (Mo. App. 1990). It is true that property can only be valued according to a use to which the property is readily available. But this does not mean that, in order for a specific use to be the highest and best use for calculating the property’s TVM, that particular use must be available to anyone deciding to purchase the property. A determination of the TVM cannot reject the property’s highest and best use and value the property at a lesser economic use of the property. Snider, 156 S.W. 3d at 348-349.
In this case, both Complainant’s evidence and Respondent’s was substantial in rebutting the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVM of the subject property was correct. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. However, Complainants’ evidence was not persusive in establishing that the TVM of the subject property was $1,200,000, and Respondent’s evidence was not persuasive in establishing that the TVM of the subject property was $1,840,000. Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Nevertheless, the evidence as a whole was persuasive in establishing that the subject property’s TVM as of January 1, 2017, was $1,470,000.
The appraisers disagreed about whether the highest and best use of the subject property was as redevelopment for new construction, i.e., a “tear down,” or as a single-family residence, i.e., not a “tear down.” The highest and best use of the subject property influenced the appraisers’ opinions of TVM.
The highest and best use of the subject property, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future, influences the determination of its TVM. Notably, Complainant’s Exhibit E established that numerous multi-acre properties in the neighborhood of the subject property had been sold between August 2015 and December 2017 for between $1,000,000 and $1,695,000. (Exhibits E3 through E 12) None were marketed as “tear downs.” Instead, all but one were marketed as single-family residences with large, luxury, “estate” homes boasting desireable amenities or extensive updates. Some of the homes were described as renovated or architecturally significant or as having distinct characteristics. The only evidence of the highest and best use of the subject property provided by Respondent were the four “tear down” comparables sold in 2015 contained within Exhibit 1, the appraiser’s report. After weighing this evidence, one could reasonably infer that the highest and best use of the subject property was as a single-family residence on January 1, 2017.
But even though Complainant’s evidence established that the subject property’s highest and best use was as a single-family residence on January 1, 2017, the evidence does not support a TVM of $1,200,000 as proposed by Complainant. Complainant’s evidence established that Mr. Hildebrand had appraised the subject property using the sales comparison approach in which he utilized three comparables sold in 2017 to arrive at an estimated value of $1,470,000. Complainant and Mr. Hildebrand testified that the estimated value was then discounted to $1,200,000 due to the need for a roof replacement. However, Complainant presented no evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that the cost to cure the defect, i.e., roof replacement, was $270,000. The evidence established that the TVM of the subject property, valued as a single-family residence, was $1,470,000 as of January 1, 2017.
The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2017 is set at $279,300 residential ($1,470,000 TVM).
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC 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, MO 65102-0146, 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. Section 138.432, RSMo
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 June 14, 2018.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 14 day of June, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.