State Tax Commission of Missouri
|v.||)||Appeal # 13-10608|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS CO., MISSOURI,||)|
ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
On May 26, 2015, Senior Hearing Officer John Treu issued his order affirming the value placed upon the subject properties by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. Complainant filed an application for review.
Standard Upon Review
A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request. The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision. The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.
Complainants assert that the Hearing Officer:
- Acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in finding the Respondent’s appraisal persuasive; the Complainant’s criticism includes that the appraiser developed an opinion of value of the property without improvements and without conducting an interior inspection;
(2) In violation of Section 138.060 RSMo. and 12 CSR 30-3.075, erred in admitting the appraisal report of the Respondent as the appraisal report included an opinion of value higher than that of the Board of Equalization; and
(3) Erred in not holding Respondent to a burden of clear, convincing and cogent evidence in violation of Section 137.115.1 RSMo.
DISCUSSION AND RULING
Complainant alleges error by the Hearing Officer in his finding the Respondent’s appraisal to be substantial and persuasive. Complainant took issue with the appraiser’s land value analysis. The appraiser did not conduct an interior inspection, however, the appraiser was able to review the file on the subject property and review previous photographs taken when the Assessor’s Office previously inspected the property or photographs and information obtained from prior hearings. The information was used for the highest and best use analysis. The highest and best use will analyze the property as though vacant and as improved. The appraiser reviewed five comparable sales. Some of the sales sold with the improvements, which were later demolished, and some of the properties sold as vacant. The appraiser reviewed the sales and demolition costs and supported his findings. Further, the appraiser noted the date of the sales and the distance from the subject property. The appraiser set forth that he would prefer the properties to be closer in time and distance but could not find any better sales for comparison purposes.
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 he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. 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)
Section 138.060 RSMo
The pertinent portion of Section138.060.1 RSMo states: “….At any hearing before the state tax commission or a court of competent jurisdiction of an appeal of assessment from a first class charter county or a city not within a county, the assessor shall not advocate nor present evidence advocating a valuation higher than that value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period.”
A state certified appraiser, when completing an appraisal, is required to form an opinion of market value. The appraiser has duties under Missouri statutes as well as USPAP which he must fulfill and comply. In other words, the expert forms an objective opinion and presents the opinion in an appraisal report. The County cannot be burdened with hiring multitudes of appraisers in hopes that one appraiser forms an opinion of value that is the exact same conclusion of value reached by the Board or assessor. In any case in St. Louis County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal.
Burden of Proof Under Section 137.115 RSMo.
Although the Board of Equalization sustained the Assessor’s valuation, the Board’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation. In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, the Respondent, when wishing to advocate to return the valuation to the Assessor’s original valuation, which was higher than the value assigned by the Board of Equalization, the provisions of Section 137.115.1, RSMo, come into play and the Respondent has the burden to present clear, convincing and cogent evidence to sustain their original valuation on residential property which was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. If, as in this appeal, the Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the Assessor, the computer assisted presumption does not come into play, as the Board’s valuation, is an independent valuation. Thus, Respondent’s burden of proof in such appeals is the same as that imposed upon complainant.
A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the 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 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. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is AFFIRMED and 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 St. Louis 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 this 6th day of October, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy Holman, Commissioner
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 6th day of October, 2015 to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the county Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and county Collector.
State Tax Commission of Missouri
|v.||)||Appeal No. 13-10608|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the County Board of Equalization for St. Louis County sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Both Complainant and Respondent submitted appraisal reports and evidence. Ultimately, Respondent’s evidence proved to be sufficient to meet Respondent’s burden to affirm the assessment by the Board of Equalization.
True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $1,094,800, residential assessed value of $208,010.
Complainant appeared by attorney Patrick Keefe.
Respondent appeared by attorney Kathryn Linnenbringer.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.
Complainant chose to only pursue this appeal on the ground of overvaluation, regarding 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, 2013. The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo
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 from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on May 18, 2015 at St. Louis County Administration Building, Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 19M640369. It is further identified as 18 Upper Ladue Road, St. Louis County, Missouri. Both appraisers felt Upper Ladue Road to be a very unique road and/or very prestigious. (Ex. A, B &1; Testimony of Appraisers)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 130,680 square foot tract (3 acres) of land improved by a single family, residential 1 ½ story style home, with 3,786 square feet of living area. Amenities include 4 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, 2 half bathrooms a 2 car attached garage, a patio and 3 fireplaces. (Ex. 1)
- Assessment. The Assessor valued the property at $1,094,800, an assessed residential value of $208,010. The Board of Equalization sustained the assessor’s valuation of the property. (Ex. 1)
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A, B, C and D. Exhibit A consisted of an appraisal report by Ronald Keeven. Exhibit B consisted of the Written Direct Testimony of Mr. Keeven. Exhibit C consisted of a portion of the USPAP definitions. Exhibit D consisted of various lot sales prices (including cost per acre) from 1/1/2009 through 1/1/2011 and from 1/1/2011 through 1/1/2013. Exhibits A through D were received into evidence without objection. Mr. Keeven described Upper Ladue Road as having “magnificent homes and then there’s a home like this [subject property] …almost don’t believe it belongs on the road”.
- No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, therefore the assessed value for 2013 remains the assessed value for 2014. Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 and 2. Exhibit 1 consisted of an appraisal report by Ross Hackman. Exhibit 2 consisted of sales on Upper Ladue Road, the subject street. Exhibit 1 was objected to as in violation of §138.060, objection was overruled and the Exhibit 1 was received into the evidentiary record. Exhibit 2 was received into evidence without objection. Mr. Hackman considered the property to be a potential/possible teardown and thus performed a Land Appraisal Report to establish a base or minimum value for the subject property (land only without improvement).
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Proven. The evidence presented by Respondent was substantial and persuasive to support the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the fair market value of the subject property to be $1,094,800, assessed residential value of $208,010. See, Respondent Proves Value, infra. Although the appraised value assigned by Respondent’s appraiser was $1,230,000 ($135,200 above the value assigned by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization), such appraisal was accepted only to sustain the original assessment made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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. 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 is assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money.
Presumption In Appeal
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of 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). 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.
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, 2013. Hermel, supra. 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.” See, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003. 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.
The Assessor’s original value in this appeal was determined by the Board to be correct. Accordingly, the taxpayer must rebut that presumption in order to prevail. The taxpayer must establish by substantial and persuasive evidence that the value concluded by the Board is in error and what the correct value should be.
The computer assisted presumption can only come into play in those instances where the Respondent is seeking to have the valuation of the subject property returned to the Assessor’s original valuation. If in a given appeal the Respondent is offering evidence that would establish a value less than the original valuation, then the computer-assisted presumption is not applicable to that appeal. Even if the Board has reduced the valuation and the Respondent’s evidence is offered to increase the value, but not to the level of the original valuation, the computer-assisted presumption does not come into play.
If the Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the Assessor, such does not negate the fact that the Board presumption remains operative as to evidence which is presented by the taxpayer and Respondent. The computer-assisted presumption only comes into play if the Board of Equalization 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 Board valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, the Respondent, when wishing to advocate for a valuation to return the valuation to the Assessor’s original valuation, which was higher than the value assigned by the Board of Equalization, has imposed upon him by the provisions of Section 137.115.1, RSMo, the burden of proof to present clear, convincing and cogent evidence to sustain a valuation on residential property which is made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program.
If, as in this appeal, the Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the Assessor, the computer assisted presumption does not come into play, as the Boards valuation, is an independent valuation. Thus, Respondent’s burden of proof in such appeals is the same as that imposed upon complainant. Respondent ultimately met the burden of proof imposed upon Respondent.
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. 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). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use. 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).
It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.
Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a 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:
- 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.
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. Section 138.430.2, RSMo. The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant 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. 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.
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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; 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. Div. 2 1974).
Opinion Testimony by Experts
An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The State Tax Commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005). The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).
Evidence of Increase in Value
In any case in charter counties or St. Louis City where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal. Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075. The evidence presented by the Respondent was substantial and persuasive to support the valuation by the Board and establish the fair market value of the property under appeal, as of January 1, 2013, to be $1,094,800.
Respondent Proves Value
Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2013, to be $1,094,800 for the subject property. 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 made by the appraiser were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type. The adjustments properly accounted for the various differences between the subject and each comparable.
Within Respondent’s appraisal report, Mr. Hackman utilized 5 comparable sales. Regarding comparables 1 through 3, such sales were made with a home on the property, which was ultimately torn down, thus the sales price took into consideration, the teardown costs of what was essentially a lot purchase. Comparables 4 and 5, utilized by Mr. Hackman were sales that had homes on them prior to their sale, but where at the time of sale, the property was simply a lot. In this appeal, the Hearing Officer does not believe it proper to consider comparables 4 and 5, as comparables 1 through 3 are the most comparable to the subject property (which has a home on it). Averaging the adjusted sales prices of comparables 1 though 3, results in a value of $1,254.833 ($151,033 more than the value affirmed herein).
Next we address Exhibit 2. Such includes a listing of sale on the subjects road, such being Upper Ladue Road, of 9 Upper Ladue Road, consisting of 2.17 acres, on 8/29/2013 for $1,200,200 ($553,087.53/acre). The Hearing Officer finds such sale substantial and persuasive. The subject property has 3 acres. This results in a value of $1,659,262 ($564,462 more than the value affirmed herein).
Finally, the Hearing Officer considered Complainant’s Exhibit D. The State Tax Commission does not wish to be left “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. 1980). Such exhibit, without more does just that. Such exhibit purports to show lot values decreased from 2009 to 2013, which Respondent’s appraiser contends is not true. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer does not find such exhibit to be persuasive. Nevertheless, looking at page 2 of Exhibit D, all but one of the sales resulted in a $/acre value in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such, one sale resulted in a sale price of only $63,250.77/acre. By considering such one sale as an aberration and excluding such, averaging the remainder of sales based upon $/acre and multiplying by the subject properties 3 acres, a value of $1,231,914 is reached ($137,114 more than the value affirmed herein).
Although Complainant also submitted an appraisal report and the testimony of such appraiser, Respondent’s appraisal report and the testimony of such appraiser was deemed by the Hearing Officer to be more substantial and persuasive. Respondent’s appraisal established the value of the subject properties land.
Finally, Respondent’s appraiser assigned a true market value of $1,230,000 ($135,200 above the value assigned by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization). Even in the event such valuation was incorrect by up to $135,200, such would constitute substantial and persuasive evidence to affirm the value assigned by the appraiser and sustained by the Board of Equalization.
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 2013 and 2014 is set at $208,010.
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. 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 this 26th day of May, 2015.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Senior Hearing Officer
Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on May 26th, 2015, to the following Individuals of this Order
Patrick Keefe, Attorney for Complainants, email@example.com
Kathryn Linnenbringer, Assistant County Counsel, Attorney for Respondent, KLinnenbringer@stlouis.com
Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mark Devore, Collector, email@example.com
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