Thomas Barr v. Zimmerman (SLCO)

August 28th, 2012

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

THOMAS BARR,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.                                                                            ) Appeal No.11-10460

)

JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $158,000, residential assessed value of $30,020.

Complainant appeared not.

Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Paula J. Lemerman.

Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, 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 this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2011.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 St. Louis County Board of Equalization.

2.Evidentiary Hearing.The appeal was set for evidentiary hearing at 11:00 a.m., Thursday, August 16, 2012, at the St. Louis County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.[1]Case called.[2]Counsel for Respondent appeared.Complainant did not appear.


2.Subject Property.The subject property is identified by locator number 17K320434.It is located at 7724 Blackberry Ave, University City, MO 63130.[3]

3.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $159,000, a residential assessed value of $30,020.The Board sustained the assessment.[4]

4.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant did not present any evidence to establish a prima facie case on the issue of the fair market value of the property as of January 1, 2011.

There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012, therefore the assessed value for 2011 remains the assessed value for 2012.[5]

5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent tendered Exhibit 1 – Appraisal dated 1/1/11 by Terry Kraus, Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser, opining a value of $165,000.In light of the failure of Complainant to present evidence to establish a prima facie case, there is no need to consider the Respondent’s evidence in this appeal.


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.[6]

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.[7]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.[8]In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed must be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[9]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.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.[10]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.[11]Complainant failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing.Accordingly, no evidence was presented that rebutted the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof


In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 2011.[12]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.”[13]A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.

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]

The failure to appear and present evidence to support an owner’s opinion of value is a failure to meet the required burden of proof.Appeal must be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to present a prima facie case for the relief sought.[16]


ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.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 $30,020.

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.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, 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 application for review is based will result in summary denial. [17]

Disputed Taxes

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 August 28, 2012.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

_____________________________________

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 28th day of August, 2012, to:Thomas Barr, 7724 Blackberry Ave., St. Louis, MO 63130,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; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax


[1] Order, dated 5/4/12; Bench Order, dated 7/31/12 (sent via email at 12:23 p.m. to thomasbarr910@yahoo.com and plemerman@stlouisco.com

 

[2] Case called at 11 a.m., Counsel for Respondent and Respondent’s witness present.Complainant not present.Complainant did not appear by 11:15 a.m.

 

[3] A complete description of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1 – Addendum Page 1 of 4 – DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS – SUBJECT PROPERTY.

 

[4] Exhibit 1, Addendum Page 1 of 4 – ASSESSMENT INFORMATION AND TAX DATA; Residential property is assessed at 19% of its appraised value (true value in money, fair market value) – Section 137.115.5 RSMo.

 

[5] Section 137.115.1, RSMo.

 

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

 

[7] Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945

 

[8] Section 137.115.5, RSMo

 

[9] 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)

 

[10] 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.

 

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

 

[12] Hermel, supra.

 

[13] 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).

 

[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] Order dated 5/4/2012 – “If you do not appear at the hearing and no request for continuance is made, your appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.12 CSR 30-3.050(3)(D) & (E)”

 

[17] Section 138.432, RSMo.