State Tax Commission of Missouri
| SAMUEL GOLDMAN, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| COMPLAINANTS, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) | 13-52500 | |
| ) | ||
| JAMES LACHNER, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| COOPER COUNTY MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) |
ORDER
AFFIRMING SENIOR HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On May 19, 2014, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Cooper County Board of Equalization and setting the appraised value of Complainant’s property at $57,400, and assessing same as a residential property with an assessed value of $10,910.
Complainant filed his Application for Review of the Decision. Respondent failed to file a Response.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Of Review
The Senior 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 Senior Hearing Officer to decide.[1]
The Senior Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of witnesses and give it as much weight and credit as he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Senior Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of witnesses 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.[2]
The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Senior Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.[3]
Complainant’s Claims of Error
Complainant raised the following points in his Application for Review:
- The Hearing Officer erred in the ruling of admissibility of evidence and showed bias against the Complainant; and
- The Hearing Offer erred in that Respondent failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish value.
DECISION
Hearing Officer’s Rulings on Admissibility and Bias
Complainants presented no valid specific allegations or reasoning to establish how the Senior Hearing Officer erred in his rulings on the admissibility of evidence tendered by Complainant or Respondent. A review of the record shows that there was sound basis for the rulings the Senior Hearing Officer made. Proper foundations must be laid prior to the admission of evidence. Mr. Goldman did not establish himself as an expert relative to the appraisal and therefore such evidence may not be admitted into evidence
The record fails to show that the Senior Hearing Officer showed bias. The transcript shows that the Senior Hearing Officer undertook an extensive analysis of what he determined to be pertinent and relevant evidence and issued a Decision formulated upon such analysis. The Senior Hearing Officer did not err in his conduct of the hearing and did not show bias as alleged by Complainant.
Presumption on Appeal and Burden of Proof
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. 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
In the present appeal, the taxpayer’s evidence on the sole issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal is that he was willing to sell the property for $39,900 and no offers were made to purchase the property and some properties alleged to be comparable to the subject reflect a valuation of less than $39,900. Such evidence does not meet the required standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment as of January 1, 2013 by the Board. There are two parts to the Board presumption to be rebutted. Those two parts are that the Board’s value is erroneous and then to establish the fair market value which should have been placed on the property.
In this instance, the owner simply showing that the property was listed at a given price and did not sell. Listings of the subject property do not establish what the property would sell for on January 1, 2013 and even if subject property sold, one sale does not establish a market. The evidence did not establish that the Board’s value was in error, nor did it establish what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as a purchase price as of January 1, 2013 or January 1, 2014, after new construction and improvements were made during 2013.
Since Complainant did not rebut the presumption on appeal, the Board of Equalizations determinations were properly affirmed. Respondent was under no obligation to present proof of value, given the presumption on appeal. Nevertheless, Respondent presented evidence which supported the valuation of the Board of Equalization. It is Complainant and not Respondent which boar the burden of proof. Such burden was not met.
Summary and Conclusion
A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Senior Hearing Officer. There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Senior 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 Senior 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.
ORDER
The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed. The Decision and Order of the Senior 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 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 September 9, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy B. Holman, Commissioner
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 11th day of September, 2014, to: Samuel Goldman, P.O.Box 188, Cotopaxi, CO 81223, Complainant; James Lachner, Assessor; Darryl Kempf, Clerk; Carol Nauman, Collector, Cooper County Courthouse, Boonville, MO 65233.
Jackie Wood
Legal Coordinator
[1] 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).
[2] 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).
[3] 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).
State Tax Commission of Missouri
|
SAMUEL GOLDMAN, |
) |
|
|
) |
||
|
Complainant, |
) |
|
|
) |
||
|
v. |
) |
Appeal No. 13-52500 |
|
) |
||
|
JAMES LACHNER, ASSESSOR, |
) |
|
|
COOPER COUNTY, MISSOURI, |
) |
|
|
) |
||
|
Respondent. |
) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Cooper County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the true value in money of the property under appeal as of January 1, 2013 and thereby failed to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $57,400, residential assessed value of $10,910.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Cooper County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject property.The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2013 and 2014. 1 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 Cooper County Board of Equalization.
2.Evidentiary Hearing.The Evidentiary Hearing was held on April 8, 2014 at the Cooper County Courthouse, Boonville, Missouri.
3.Identification of Subject Property.The subject property is identified by map parcel number 05-7.0-35001-015-01300.It is located at 305 Chestnut St., Boonville, Missouri. 2
4.Description of Subject Property.The subject property consists of a 5,475 square foot lot, improved by a one and a half story brick single family residence.The house is 81+ years old.It has a total of 6 rooms, with 2
bedrooms and 2 baths, and a gross living area of 1,706 square feet.There is a full unfinished basement. 3
5.Condition of and Improvements to House.The property as of January 1, 2013 had significant deferred maintenance, as well as, damage and trash from occupancy by a tenant. 4 During 2013, Complainant made repairs and improvements to the house. 5
6. Sale and Listing History of Subject Property.Property was listed March 14, 2008 for $82,900, reduced to $79,900 for 305 days on the market.Property was listed October 31, 2012 or November 1, 2012 for $49,000, lowered to $47,500 (January 31, 2013) for 333 days on the market.Listing price reduced to $39,900, February 15, 2013. 6
7.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $62,300, an assessed residential value of $11,840.The Board of Equalization reduced the value to $57,400, an assessed residential value of $10,910. 7
8.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant offered into evidence the following exhibits:
|
EXHIBITS |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Listing Contract dtd 10/31/12 – Subject – $47,500 |
|
B |
Listing Contract dtd 2/15/13 – Subject – $39,900 |
|
C |
MultiList Data Sheets – 4 sales of properties in Boonville |
|
D |
Photographs – Subject’s Living & Dining Room Ceilings |
|
E |
Photographs – Dining Room Floor & Basement |
|
G |
Photographs – Dining Room Wall & Outside Door |
|
H |
Statement of Basis of Value, dtd 11/14/13 |
Exhibits A through H were received into evidence.Mr. Goldman testified at the evidentiary
hearing.
9.Evidence of New Construction & Improvement.There was evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, therefore the assessed value for 2014 is to reflect the fair market value of the property in the physical condition it existed as of January 1, 2014 under the economic conditions as of January 1, 2013. 8
10.Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted.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, 2013, to be $39,900, as proposed.See, Presumption In Appeal, Methods of Valuation, and Complainant’s Burden of Proof, infra.
11.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent offered into evidence the following exhibits:
|
EXHIBITS |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Calculation & Supporting Documents Dollar Per Sq Ft |
|
2 |
BOE letter & minutes – 7/8/13 |
|
3 |
Appraisal Report – Shari Hilden |
|
4 |
MultiList Active Listing – Subject, dated 10/31/13 |
|
5 |
Assessor’s Statement of Basis of Value |
Mr. Lachner and Ms. Hilden testified at the evidentiary hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Jurisdiction
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. 9
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. 10 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. 11
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. 12 This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption.It places the
burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.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 Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. 13
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 14 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.15
In the present appeal, the taxpayer’s evidence on the sole issue of the fair market value of the property
under appeal is that he was willing to sell the property for $39,900 and no offers were made to purchase the property and some properties alleged to be comparable to the subject reflect a valuation of less than $39,900. 16 Such evidence does not meet the required standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment as of January 1, 2013 by the Board.There are two parts to the Board presumption to be rebutted.Those two parts are that the Board’s value is erroneous and then to establish the fair market value which should have been placed on the property. In this instance, the owner simply showing that the property was listed at a given price and did not sell, neither established that the Board’s value was in error, nor did it establish what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as a purchase price as of January 1, 2013 or January 1, 2014, after new construction and improvements were made during 2013.
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. 17 True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. 18 It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. 19 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.
6.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. 20
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, 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.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. 21 The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant, Respondent and Respondent’s appraiser.
Weight to be Given Evidence
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. 22
The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an owner, assessor or appraiser 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 an owner, assessor or appraiser who testify on the
issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the witnesses’ testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. 23
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 24 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. 25 Complainant failed to present an opinion of value which was based upon any of the three recognized and acceptable methods for appraising real property.Evidence of what a property has been listed for has not been recognized by either the Courts of the Missouri or the Commission as a valid methodology for establishing fair market value as of a given date.Respondent presented evidence of fair market
value based upon the sales comparison approach.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
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, 2013. 26 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.” 27 As previously addressed under Presumption In Appeal and Methods of Valuation, Complainant failed to establish by a recognized appraisal methodology what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as a purchase price of the property as of January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014.
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. 28 The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or
an improper foundation.29 Given that evidence as to past listings of a property does not constitute a valid appraisal methodology, an opinion that rests upon such information cannot be found to be based upon proper elements or
a proper foundation.Mr. Goldman also offered real estate company data sheets (Exhibit C) on four different properties he thought were comparable to his property.No probative weight can be given to this information as it was not a part of an appraisal of the property.Appraisers utilize such raw data, however, there must be adjustments to make each alleged comparable as similar as possible to the property being appraised. Simply showing a group of properties that have sold for various prices, does not establish what a willing buyer and seller would have paid for the property under appeal. Accordingly, no probative weight is given to the sale properties in Exhibit C.
Summary and Conclusion
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.”30 In this instance, the evidence of Mr. Goldman
as to the fair market value of his property, as of January 1, 2013, is based upon noting more or less than his own speculation and not upon any recognized appraisal methodology.For the Hearing Officer to conclude value for the subject property as of January 1, 2013 based on Complainant’s exhibits would be nothing more than an exercise in
speculation, conjecture and surmise.The Decision cannot rest upon that foundation. Furthermore, Complainant offered no evidence to establish what the fair market value of the property would have been after the repairs and renovation during 2013.Therefore, Complainant has failed to prove value for either 2013 or 2014 and the valuation of the Board as to tax year 2013 must be affirmed.
Hearing Officer’s Analysis of Evidence as to Value for 2014
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.Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence from which the fair market value, as of
January 1, 2014, can be concluded.Respondent’s appraiser developed an opinion of value relying upon an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the sales comparison or market approach.
The sales comparison approach is generally recognized to be the most reliable methodology to be utilized in the valuation of single-family residences.The adjustments required to the seven comparable sales were of the type necessary to bring the comparables into similar condition as the subject. Due to the limited sales activity in Boonville, the gross adjustments in some instances exceeded recommended guidelines. That factor however, does not disqualify the appraisal report from being given consideration in arriving at fair market value.Ms. Hilton appraised the property as of November 6, 2013, after the property had received extensive repairs and
renovations.The sales data used set the brackets for the range of sales between July 29, 2011 and May 10, 2013.There was no evidence to indicate any significant economic change for the overall values of homes in Boonville of the general age, condition and design of the subject, from January 1, 2013 to Ms. Hilton’s appraisal date.
The Hearing Officer’s examination and analysis of the seven sale properties resulted in the exclusion of Comp 1 due to its gross living area being slightly over 500 square feet smaller than the subject.Comp 4’s gross living area was 620 square feet larger than the subject. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not give it any probative value in the analysis. The remaining five sale properties were in a very close range from just 222 square feet larger than the subject, to 298 square feet smaller than the subject. These five properties produced adjusted sales prices with the following values: $55,114, $55,700, $57,700, $58,200 and $65,900. The point which comes home to the Hearing Officer is that the median indicated value is just $300 above that concluded by the Board in its determination of value.The average of all five sales comes in at $58,520 rounded.
If the high ($65,900) and the low ($55,114) are removed the average for the remaining three sales calculates
to $57,200.This results in a median value of $57,700, a five property average of $58,520, and a three property
average of $57,200.All of these indicated values for the property after its repair and renovation provide substantiating evidence of the value set by the Board.Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concludes that the value for both 2013 and 2014 should be set at the value of $57,400 as per the Board’s determination.
The Hearing Officer is certainly aware that the condition of Complainant’s property as of January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014 was not the same.As of January 2013 the property was in a state of disrepair, deferred maintenance and in need of clean up, repair and renovation.As of January 2014, the property had been cleaned up, repairs and
renovation had taken place.Therefore, if the property as just analyzed would be worth $57,400 as of January 1, 2014, its value must have been less as of January 1, 2013.The problem is that Complainant presented nosubstantial and persuasive evidence upon which the Hearing Officer can conclude the value as of January 1, 2013.The
Board presumption, as a matter of law, stands. For the Hearing Officer to make some reduction in the January 1, 2014
valuation to set a different value as of January 1, 2013 would be simply an arbitrary and capricious act.Such is
not permitted.Therefore, the valuation as of January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014 are to remain the same.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Cooper County is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $10,910.
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, 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. 31
Disputed Taxes
The Collector of Cooper 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 this 19th day of May, 2014.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
1 The value as of January 1, 2013 remains the value as of January 1, 2014 unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. In the case where there is new construction and improvement during the odd numbered year, the value for the immediate following even numbered year is to be the value as the property existed as of January 1st of the even number year, but under the economic conditions as of January 1st of the immediate
preceding odd numbered year.Section 137.115.1 RSMo
2 Complaint for Review of Assessment; BOE Decision Letter; Exhibit 3
3 Exhibit 3
4 Exhibits D, E & F; Testimony of Owner at hearing
5 Owner estimated total out of pocket expenses to have been $6,000 – $7,000, and that he had a contractor to estimate the cost of the work that was done to be $15,000.However, no substantiating documents were provided for either the owner’s work done or a copy of a contractor’s estimate.
6 Exhibits 3 & 4; Exhibits A & B
7 Exhibit 1 – Summary of Salient Facts, p. 2; BOE Decision, dtd 7/31/12 – Attached to Complaint for Review of Assessment
8. Section 137.115.1, RSMo
9 Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.
10 Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945
11 Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money
12 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)
13 Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)
14 See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.
Substantial and persuasive evidence is not an extremely high standard of evidentiary proof. It is the lowest of the three standards for evidence (substantial & persuasive, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt).
It requires a small amount of evidence to cross the threshold to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.The definitions, relevant to substantial evidence, do not support a position that substantial and persuasive evidence is an extremely or very high standard.
“Substantial evidence: Evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; evidence beyond a scintilla.”Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 580 The word scintilla is defined as “1. a spark,2. a particle; the least trace.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.Black’s definition at 1347 is “A spark or trace <the standard is that there must be more than a scintilla of evidence>.”There must be more than a spark or trace for evidence to have attained the standard of substantial.Once there is something more than a spark or trace the evidence has reached the level of substantial.Substantial evidence and the term preponderance of the evidence are essentially the same.“Preponderance of the evidence.The greater weight of the evidence; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”Black’s at 1201 Substantial evidence is that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Preponderance is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, i.e. support the proposed conclusion.
15 Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975)
16 Exhibit G – Complainant’s Statement of Basis of Value
17 St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993)
18 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)
19 Hermel, supra
20 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.
21 Section 138.430.2, RSMo
22 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)
23 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)
24 See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra;Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).
25 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, 69 (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).
26 Hermel, supra
27 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)
28 Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970)
29 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).
30 See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980)
31 Section 138.432, RSMo