Tao Zhao & Jian Xu v. Zmimerman (SLCO)

November 14th, 2012

State Tax Commission of Missouri





v.                                                                            ) Appeal No.11-10513









Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to comply with Order for Filing and Exchange of Exhibits, dated 5/11/12.Respondent complied with said Order and filed Exhibit 1.[1]

Appeal dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.


Complainants appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Commission takes the appeal to determine the true value in money of the property as of January 1, 2011.


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

2.The subject property is located at 279 Windy Acres Estates Drive, Ballwin, [2]Missouri.The property is identified by locator number 23S230406.The Assessor appraised the property at $305,100, an assessed residential value of $57,970.The Board of Equalization sustained the assessment.

3.By Order issued 5/11/12, parties were, on or before November 2, 2012, to file with the Commission and serve a copy on the opposing party of all exhibits to support the party’s opinion of value for the property under appeal.Complainant’s failed to comply with said Order.Respondent complied and filed and exchanged Exhibit 1.[3]



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.[4]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[5]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.[6]Complainant’s failed to comply with the Commission order and present evidence on the issue of overvaluation.Accordingly, the presumption of correct assessment by the Board was not rebutted.

Dismissal of Appeal

A Hearing Officer on his own motion may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the rules and orders of the Commission, failure of prosecution and failure to present evidence to establish prima facie a case for the relief sought.[7]Appeal is dismissed for to comply with the rules and orders of the Commission, failure of prosecution and failure to present evidence to establish prima facie a case for the relief sought.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $57,970.

Complainant 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. [8]

The Collector ofSt. Louis 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 November 8, 2012.



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 8th day of November, 2012, to:Tao Zhao, 279 Windy Acres Estates Drive, Ballwin, MO 63021, Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Eugene Leung, Director of Revenue, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.


Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri – State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102


573-751-1341 FAX

[1] Appraisal Report – Terry Kraus, Mo. State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser.

[2] Exhibit 1 – Assessment Information and Tax data, Addendum Page 1 of 4.

[3] Exhibit 1 proposed a value of $330,000.By Commission Rule 12 CSR 30-3.075 the exhibit was only received for purposes of sustaining the value $305,100 and not for increasing the assessed value above $57,970.

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


[5] 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).


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


[7] 12 CSR 30-3.050 (3) (D).

[8] Section 138.432, RSMo.