State Tax Commission of Missouri
SUSANN EDDY,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.) Appeal Number 07-89564
)
JAMES STRAHAN, ASSESSOR,)
TANEY COUNTY,MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization setting the assessed value at $34,910 is SET ASIDE.Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct assessment rebutted. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $135,527, residential assessed value of $25,750.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization, which set the assessed value of the subject property at $34,910, true value in money of $183,740.Complainant proposed a value of $135,000, assessed value of $25,650.A hearing was conducted on February 20, 2008, at the Taney County Courthouse Annex,Forsyth,Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant did not receive the notice of hearing until February 19, 2008, and was unable to attend the hearing.
Respondent’s Evidence
Mr. Kenny Davis, appraiser forTaneyCountypresented a copy of the revised property record card which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1.The revised PRC concluded a value under the mass appraisal cost approach of $135,527, assessed value of $25,750.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Taney County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is identified by parcel number 07-6.0-14-004-008-008.000.3.By abatement Number 2008-0489, dated December 19, 2007, theTaneyCounty
Board of Equalization set the assessed value for the property under appeal at $34,910.Exhibit 2 – BOE Abatement & PRC for subject property.
4. The Revised PRC established value at $135,527, assessed value of $25,750.The
revision was based on a correction in the adjusted area from 2,761 square feet to 1,794 of living area.This was based upon a re-measuring of the subject home.Exhibit 1, Information from Kenney Davis.
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.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.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.Section 138.431.4, RSMo.
Presumption In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.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).
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer or Respondent 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.Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.The Revised PRC constituted substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment as establish fair market value of $135,527.
Duty to Investigate
In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer has the duty to inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, sub-classification or assessment of the property.The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon its inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties.Section 138.430.2, RSMo.
The Hearing Officer in the company of County Counselor, Robert Paulson, and Kenny Davis, Chief Appraiser for Taney County, met with County Collector Sheila Wyatt, to obtain a copy of the Board of Equalization Order setting the assessed value at $34,910.Mr. Davis advised the Hearing Officer that a re-measurement of the property had resulted in the creation of the revised PRC with the value of $135,527.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as set by the Board of Equalization forTaneyCountyfor the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $25,750.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific 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.Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.
If an application for review of this 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 and an order to the Collector to release and disburse the impounded taxes.§139.031.3, RSMo.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 Taney 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 or all 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 February 26, 2008.
TATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
<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”
stroked=”f”>
<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:165.75pt;
height:43.5pt’>
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 26thday of February, 2008, to:Susann Eddy, 410 Lakefront Circle, Kimberling City, MO 65686, Complainant; Robert Paulson, County Counselor, P.O. Box 1086, Forsyth, MO 65653, Attorney for Respondent; James Strahan, Assessor, P.O. Box 612, Forsyth, MO 65653; Donna Neeley, Clerk, P.O. Box 156, Forsyth, MO 65653; Sheila Wyatt, Collector, P.O. Box 278, Forsyth, MO 65653.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator