State Tax Commission of Missouri
TIMOTHY M. BROWN,)
v.) Appeal Number 07-57001
BILL OVERSCHMIDT, ASSESSOR,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization increasing the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 to be $160,630, assessed value of $30,520.
Complainants appeared not.
Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Mark Vincent.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization, which increased the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $159,440, assessed value of $30,294, as residential property.The Board of Equalization determined an appraised value of $160,630, assessed value of $30,520, as residential property.Complainants proposed a value of $140,000, assessed value of $26,600.A hearing was conducted on March 7, 2008, at the Assessor’s Conference Room,Union,Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainants failed to appear and no evidence was submitted.
The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of the Respondent.
Exhibit 1 – Appraisal of Subject Property
All Exhibits were received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is located at825 Redbud Drive,Lonedell,Missouri.The property is identified by parcel number 31-5-16.0-0-002-016.000.The property consists of a 2.07 acre lot improved by a two-story vinyl-sided frame, single-family structure.The house is approximately nine years of age and appears to be in normal condition for its age.The residence has eight rooms which includes three bedrooms and one full and two half baths for a total of 1,452 square feet of living area and an unfinished basement.There is a two-car attached garage.
3.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.
4.Complainants’ evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.
5.The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser in performing her appraisal were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property.Two of the comparable properties were located within five miles of the subject and another was located within 20 miles of the subject property.Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2007.The sale properties were similar to the subject.The appraiser properly adjusted for differences between the subject and each sale property.The adjustments made were appropriate for the present appraisal problem.The owner did not challenge or refute any of the descriptive conclusions reached by the appraiser.
6.Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $180,000.Respondent’s appraisal was accepted only to sustain the original assessment made by the Assessor and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
Presumptions 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 presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
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, 2007.Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).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.Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).See also, 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).
Complainant failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing and offer any evidence of true value in money.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Commission Order and failure of prosecution.12 CSR 30-3.050(3)(C) & (D).
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization forFranklinCountyfor the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $30,520.
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.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 Franklin 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 March 14, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 14thday of March, 2008, to:Timothy Brown, 825 Redbud Drive, Lonedell, MO 63060, Complainant; Mark Vincent, Franklin County Counselor, P.O. Box 439, Union, MO 63084, Attorney for Respondent; Bill Overschmidt, Assessor, 400 E. Locust, Suite 105A, Union, MO 63084; Debbie Door, Clerk, Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 201, Union, MO 63084; Linda Emmons, Collector; Franklin County Courthouse, 400 E. Locust, Suite 103, Union, MO 63084.