State Tax Commission of Missouri
| VIJON, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Number 15-15989 |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
ORDER
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
HOLDING
On March 28, 2017, Chief Counsel Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer), entered her Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE). The Hearing Office set the original cost of the business personal property at issue owned by Vijon (Complainant) at $1,095,089.
Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri (Respondent) filed his Application for Review of the Decision. Complainant filed its Response. Respondent filed his Reply.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard of 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. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4). The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5). The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the Commission. Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).
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. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974). 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, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968). Likewise, the Commission is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the Commission deems them entitled.
The Commission, having reviewed the record and having considered the Decision of the Hearing Officer and the briefs of the parties, enters its Decision. Segments of the Hearing Officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into our Decision without further reference.
DECISION
Respondent’s Points on Review
In his Application for Review, Respondent claims that the Hearing Officer erred (1) by finding that evidence of the original cost of the subject property to be substantial, competent and persuasive; (2) by disregarding and giving “no weight to Complainant’s reported ‘taxable’ cost of $1,315,952 for the subject property which constitutes a binding judicial admission by Complainant”; and (3) misinterpreting Section 137.122 in “accepting Complainant’s characterization of assets comprising Complainant’s subject property that are assessable tangible personal property under Section 137.122 RSMo as non-assessable installation costs in view of the inconsistent and conflicting characterizations by Complainant of the same assets and in the absence of any corroborating documentations to support Complainant’s characterization for these assets.”
Commission’s Ruling
For the reasons that will now be set forth in response to Respondent’s Points on Review, the Commission finds Respondent’s arguments to be unpersuasive to warrant either a modification or overturning of the Decision.
Factual and Procedural History
On March 28, 2017, the Hearing Officer entered her Decision finding that the original cost of the personal property at issue was $1,095,089. The Hearing Officer found that Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a valuation reflecting the fair market value of the subject property.
Properties in Issue
| LINE | SYS# | DESCRIPTION |
| 1666 | 4261 | MO-ICC batch tank miscellaneous materials |
| 1676 | 4282 | Batching Mnfld Enhancement Miscellaneous Materials |
| 1680 | 4293 | Mo Energy Recovery |
| 1691 | 4304 | Mo Batch Flexibility Miscellaneous Materials |
| 1699 | 4312 | Update blending control |
| 1710 | 4322 | MO Boiler system |
| 1715 | 4330 | MO-2 10,000 gal batch tanks |
| 1724 | 4358 | MO-ICC-09 upgrade |
| 1735 | 4406 | Mo-purple line materials |
| 1739 | 4442 | ICC-03 batch flexibility |
| 1741 | 4447 | ICC-05 batch tank |
| 1742 | 4450 | ICC-08 update |
| 1743 | 4457 | ICC-01 CIP system |
| 1744 | 4461 | ICC-10 batching manifold mat |
| 1706 | 4467 | ICC-07 Semi bulk materials |
| 1745 | 4472 | ICC-06 sanitizer |
| 1705 | 4476-A | MO install tank |
| 4476-B | MO install tank | |
| 1746 | 4477 | Mo-Install Surfactant Tanks |
Analysis
We have reviewed the whole record in this case and find that the Hearing Officer did not err as Respondent alleged in his Application for Review.
Hearing Officer Did Not Err in Finding the Evidence Presented
was Substantial, Competent and Persuasive
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. 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).
Respondent’s first point contends that the evidence, as a whole, was not substantial persuasive and thus the Hearing Officer’s Decision was arbitrary and capricious. “Whether an action is arbitrary focuses on whether an agency had a rational basis for its decision”; and “capriciousness concerns whether the agency’s action was whimsical, impulsive, or unpredictable.” Board of Education v. Mo. State Board of Education, 271 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Mo. Banc 2008) Therefore the Respondent must establish that there was no rational basis for the decision and that reasonable minds could not differ about the impropriety of the ruling. Respondent has failed to establish any such things.
Further, Respondent fails to recognize that his argument invades the province of the trier of fact in this appeal, namely, the Hearing Officer. Complainant’s evidence clearly induced belief in the Hearing Officer. As stated previously, 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, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
The evidence supporting the Hearing Officer’s decision includes an amended declaration (Exhibit A), an amended asset list (Exhibit B), the testimony of Dean Swaller, and invoices and ledgers of Complainant (Exhibit E). Swaller is employed by Complainant. He is responsible for the equipment and is familiar with the cost of the equipment and its installation.
Such evidence was substantial and persuasive to the Hearing Officer. Such evidence establishes a rational basis for the Decision. Consequently, Respondent’s first point is denied.
Hearing Officer Did Not Err in Determining the Original Cost of the Equipment;
Exhibit B was not a Binding Admission
Respondent’s second point contends that Exhibit B constitutes a binding judicial admission. Exhibit B is an Amended Asset List setting forth the personal property of Complainant, the year it was acquired and its original cost, $1,315,952. However, Complainant also submitted ledgers and invoices (Exhibit E) and the testimony of an employee familiar with the assets. (Exhibit D and testimony at the Hearing)
After a review of all the evidence, the Hearing Officer concluded that the original cost of the property at issue was $1,095,089. Such review included not only an asset listing (Exhibit B), but the testimony of one familiar with the assets, their purchase price and installation. (Exhibit D and testimony at hearing) Further, Exhibit E was the Complainant’s ledger and invoices relating to those purchases and installation.
Exhibit B and the Joint Exhibit drafted by the parties during the hearing to aid the Hearing Officer after the property in dispute was reduced from 1750 items to 19 line items do not constitute a judicial admission. The Joint Exhibit listed out the different values proposed by the parties from their asset listings. At no time did the Complainant admit or take any formal action conceding to a value of the property and Respondent certainly did not concede to such value. An admission removes an issue from dispute in a particular case. In this appeal, the issue was the original cost of the 19 line items and such issue remains before the STC and, further, Respondent still disputes the original cost.
Hearing Officer Did Not Err in Determining the Original Cost of the Equipment in that Installation is Not to Be Included Pursuant to Section 137.122 RSMo.
Respondent’s point 3 addresses Section 137.122 RSMo. Section 137.122.1 (4) RSMo defines “Original cost” as “the price the current owner, the taxpayer, paid for the item without freight, installation, or sales or use tax.” Respondent cannot include installation costs as part of its determination of “original costs”.
The Hearing Officer found the testimony of witness Swaller, along with the invoices and ledgers (Exhibit E), to be substantial and persuasive as to the issue of original cost. Swaller is responsible for the equipment at issue. He reviewed and approved all costs incurred in installation. He is familiar with the market value of the property and which property would be marketable for resale. He was the only witness that testified who was familiar with the equipment and its installation. He was the only witness qualified to testify as to the value of the equipment and the parts for installation which had no resale or salvage potential.
Respondent presented no witnesses familiar with the property. The witnesses for the Respondent did not inspect the property for the 2015 declaration. Respondent’s witness admitted that the parts used in installation had no value. Respondent’s evidence was the initial filings of the Complainant. Respondent presented no evidence refuting the testimony and exhibits of Complainant.
Summary & Conclusion
A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is competent, persuasive 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 full review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that she abused her 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 Hearing Officer did not err in her determinations as challenged by Respondent.
ORDER
Upon review of the record and the Decision in this appeal, the Commission finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is Affirmed. The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is 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 Monroe 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 August 15th, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Victor Callahan, Commissioner
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 15th day of August, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
State Tax Commission of Missouri
| ViJON INC | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Complainant, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | Appeal Number 15-15989 |
| ) | ||
| JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, | ) | |
| ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, | ) | |
| ) | ||
| Respondent. | ) |
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) sustaining the assessment made by Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) is SET ASIDE. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.
Complainant appeared by counsel Thomas Campbell.
Respondent appeared by counsel Ed Corrigan.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for business and manufacturing personal property on January 1, 2015.
SUMMARY
The Complainant submitted a personal property declaration on March 25, 2015 to the Respondent of approximately 45 pages estimating total assessed values of $1,826,800. Complainant’s full declaration contains 1,757 lines of personal property. At the hearing, the parties narrowed the issue to 19 items of personal property. Complainant alleges the historical cost of the items provided to the Respondent include installation costs which should not be considered in the original cost of the business personal property as set out in Section 137.122 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 BOE.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on December 16, 2015 at the St. Louis County Government Building, 41 South Central Avenue, St. Louis County, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by account number M00197043. The property is business and manufacturing personal property located at 8515 Page Avenue on January 1, 2015.
- Description of Subject Property. Although the personal property is in excess of 1750 items, the parties narrowed the issue to 19 line items.
| LINE | SYS# | DESCRIPTION |
| 1691 | 4304 | Mo Batch Flexibility Miscellaneous Materials |
| 1735 | 4406 | Mo-purple line materials |
| 1706 | 4467 | ICC-07 Semi bulk materials |
| 1746 | 4477 | Mo-Install Surfacant Tanks |
| 1676 | 4282 | Batching Mnfld Enhancement Miscellaneous Materials |
| 1666 | 4261 | MO-ICC batch tank miscellaneous materials |
| 1710 | 4322 | MO Boiler system |
| 1743 | 4457 | ICC-01 CIP system |
| 1680 | 4293 | Mo Energy Recovery |
| 1715 | 4330 | MO-2 10,000 gal batch tanks |
| 1724 | 4358 | MO-ICC-09 upgrade |
| 1745 | 4472 | ICC-06 sanitizer |
| 1741 | 4447 | ICC-05 batch tank |
| 1744 | 4461 | ICC-10 batching manifold mat |
| 1699 | 4312 | Update blending control |
| 1739 | 4442 | ICC-03 batch flexibility |
| 1742 | 4450 | ICC-08 update |
| 1705 | 4476-A | MO install tank |
| 1705 | 4476-B | MO install tank |
- Assessment. The Respondent determined the assessed value of all Complainant’s property at $1,826,790. The BOE sustained the assessment.
- Complainant’s Evidence. [1]
| Exhibit | Description |
| A | Amended Declaration 2015 |
| B | Amended Asset List |
| D | Written Direct Testimony of Dean Swaller |
| E | Invoices |
Exhibit A is an amended declaration setting forth a total original cost of all business personal property at $20,223,229, assessed value of $1,324,060.
Exhibit B is an amended asset list. The list is a ledger compiled by the Complainant of their personal property as of January 1, 2015, the historical costs and the Complainant’s proposed taxable costs. The list contains: line number, system number, description, year of acquisition, historical costs, non-tax costs, taxable costs and comments. Exhibit B is 48 pages of 1757 assets, listing historical costs of $27,314,450, non-tax costs of $7,091,221, and taxable original costs of $20,223,229.
Exhibit D is the written direct testimony of Witness Dean Swaller who is the Vice President of Manufacturing at Vi-Jon. In his written direct testimony and oral testimony, the witness detailed his familiarity with the plant and equipment including the purchase, installation, improvement, and upgrade of machinery and equipment utilized by the company.
The witness testified that installation costs were inadvertently included in the original personal property declaration filed with St. Louis County. The witness reviewed the ledger to explain the costs which were related to the installation. During the course of testimony, additional ledger information and statements were provided. The items were designated Exhibit E. The costs set forth in Exhibit E are:
System # 4261 – the total costs were $30,925 all of which were related to installation;
System # 4282 – the total costs were $93,744 all of which were related to installation;
System # 4293 – the total costs were $49,796, of which $5,786 was related to installation;
System # 4304 – the total costs were $168,758, of which $149,455 was related to installation;
System # 4312 – the total costs were $22,070, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4322 – the total costs were $289,269, all of which $51,423 was related to installation;
System # 4330 – the total costs were $102,582, all of which $87,597 were related to installation;
System # 4358 – the total costs were $52,985, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4406 – the total costs were $53,042, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4442 – the total costs were $13,084, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4447 – the total costs were $29,716, all of which were related to installation,
System # 4450 – the total costs were $9,131, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4457 – the total costs were $342,656, of which $185,060 were related to installation;
System # 4461 – the total costs were $35,180, all of which were related to installation;
System # 4467 – the total costs were $186,700, of which $118,795 was related to installation;
System # 4472 – the total costs were $506,515, of which $234,071 was related to installation;
System # 4476 – the total costs were $417,517, of which $174,309 was related to installation and $53,278 was related to a tank located outside of the state and therefore has no tax situs in St. Louis County; and
System # 4477 – the total costs were $426,582, of which $351,629 wase related to installation;
Total “original costs”, cost excluding installation and items without tax situs in St. Louis County, of the nineteen items is $1,095,089
- Respondent’s Evidence.
| Exhibit | Description |
| 1 | Written Direct Testimony of Michael Suddarth |
| 2 | Personal Property Declaration |
| 3 | BOE On-Line Property |
| 4 | BOE Decision |
| 5 | Complaint for Review of Assessment |
| 6 | Valuation with Invoices |
Exhibit 1 is the written direct testimony of Michael Suddarth. He testified that the true market value of the Complainant’s property was $4,666,430, the assessed value was $1,713,190. Witness Suddarth testified that he had not conducted a site visit to view or inventory the property in 2015. He further testified that the business personal property declaration was accepted as filed by the Complainant.
Exhibit 2 is the business personal property declaration originally filed by the Complainant.
Exhibit 3 is the documentation of appeal filed by the Complainant to the BOE.
Exhibit 4 is the BOE Decision.
Exhibit 5 is the Complaint for Review of Assessment filed with the STC.
Exhibit 6 is pages from the Complainant’s ledger and copies of invoices of Complainant.
- Joint Exhibit. The parties submitted a Joint Exhibit which was simply marked as “Joint Exhibit”. The exhibit is a chart listing 19 line items of personal property including the system number, description, line number, age, Complainant’s proposed historical costs as set out in Exhibit B (CHC), and Respondent’s proposed historical costs as set out in Complainant’s declaration (RHC).
| LINE | SYS# | DESCRIPTION | CHC | RHC |
| 1691 | 4304 | Mo Batch Flexibility Miscellaneous Materials | $19,303 | $168,758 |
| 1735 | 4406 | Mo-purple line materials | $0 | $53,402 |
| 1706 | 4467 | ICC-07 Semi bulk materials | $87,522 | $186,700 |
| 1746 | 4477 | Mo-Install Surfacant Tanks | $45,659 | $346,072 |
| 1676 | 4282 | Batching Mnfld Enhancement Miscellaneous Materials | $0 | $93,744 |
| 1666 | 4261 | MO-ICC batch tank miscellaneous materials | $0 | $30,925 |
| 1710 | 4322 | MO Boiler system | $278,269 | $289,269 |
| 1743 | 4457 | ICC-01 CIP system | $172,654 | $342,654 |
| 1680 | 4293 | Mo Energy Recovery | $0 | $49,796 |
| 1715 | 4330 | MO-2 10,000 gal batch tanks | $27,424 | $102,582 |
| 1724 | 4358 | MO-ICC-09 upgrade | $0 | $52,958 |
| 1745 | 4472 | ICC-06 sanitizer | $341,515 | $506,515 |
| 1741 | 4447 | ICC-05 batch tank | $10,036 | $29,716 |
| 1744 | 4461 | ICC-10 batching manifold mat | $8837 | $35,180 |
| 1699 | 4312 | Update blending control | $0 | $22,070 |
| 1739 | 4442 | ICC-03 batch flexibility | $6,101 | $13,084 |
| 1742 | 4450 | ICC-08 update | $0 | $9131 |
| 1705 | 4476-A | MO install tank | $318,632 | $417,517 |
| 1705 | 4476-B | MO install tank | ||
| Total | $1,315,952 | $2,750,073 | ||
- Value Established. The evidence presented by Complainant was substantial and persuasive to establish “original cost” as defined in Section 137.122 RSMo of the 19 line items of business personal property at $1,095,089.
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. 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 and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo.
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). 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. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra. 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).
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, 2015. 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); 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). 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.
Owner’s Opinion of Value
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970). The owner’s opinion is without probative value; however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation. Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).
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); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
Business Personal Property
Section 137.122, RSMo
To establish uniformity in the valuation of personal property, Section 137.122 RSMo was enacted. For purposes of this section, and to estimate the value of depreciable tangible personal property for mass appraisal purposes, each assessor values depreciable tangible personal property by applying the class life and recovery period to the original cost of the property according to the depreciation schedule set forth in the statute. “Original cost” is defined as the price paid for the item without freight, installation, or sales or use tax. The valuation by this method presumed to be correct for the purpose of determining the true value in money of the depreciable tangible personal property. There is no dispute as to class life period or depreciation.
The Complainant filed a business personal property list with the Respondent in tax year 2015. The Complainant certified that the list was true and correct. Respondent conducted no inspection or inventory of Complainant’s property in 2015. Respondent relied upon the sworn, certified list to set value for the personal property. However, the business personal property list filed by Complainant, even though certified by the Complainant as being true and correct, was not accurate. Due to the Complainant not acting with due diligence and providing a list to which the Complainant swore was accurate, the county was unable to correctly value the personal property. Since the basis of the assessment was an inaccurate listing of personal property original cost, the presumption of correct assessment is rebutted.
Complainant’s witness, Witness Swaller, was familiar with all property present at the property. He is the plant manager and therefore oversees all operations at the plant. He is familiar with all the equipment, its maintenance, installation, costs, and so on. Witness Swaller reviewed the ledgers and personal property declarations to determine if the original costs were declared correctly. He determined the original costs were incorrectly reported. He testified as to the labor and material costs to install many of the items on the inaccurate declaration form. He was able to identify invoices for the costs in order to remove those expenses for an accurate reporting of “original costs”. Using his knowledge and familiarity of the plant, a detailed and accurate inventory of the property and their original costs was developed.
Complainant possesses over 1,750 items of personal property with tax situs in St. Louis. During the hearing, the parties narrowed the issue to 19 items of personal property and their “original cost.”
Upon review of all testimony and exhibits, the “original costs” as defined under Section 137.122 RSMo of the nineteen items are:
| LINE | SYS# | DESCRIPTION | Cost |
| 1666 | 4261 | MO-ICC batch tank miscellaneous materials | $0 |
| 1676 | 4282 | Batching Mnfld Enhancement Miscellaneous Materials | $0 |
| 1680 | 4293 | Mo Energy Recovery | $44,010 |
| 1691 | 4304 | Mo Batch Flexibility Miscellaneous Materials | $19,303 |
| 1699 | 4312 | Update blending control | $11,379 |
| 1710 | 4322 | MO Boiler system | $237,846 |
| 1715 | 4330 | MO-2 10,000 gal batch tanks | $14,986 |
| 1724 | 4358 | MO-ICC-09 upgrade | $0 |
| 1735 | 4406 | Mo-purple line materials | $1290 |
| 1739 | 4442 | ICC-03 batch flexibility | $0 |
| 1741 | 4447 | ICC-05 batch tank | $0 |
| 1742 | 4450 | ICC-08 update | $0 |
| 1743 | 4457 | ICC-01 CIP system | $157,596 |
| 1744 | 4461 | ICC-10 batching manifold mat | $0 |
| 1706 | 4467 | ICC-07 Semi bulk materials | $71,362 |
| 1745 | 4472 | ICC-06 sanitizer | $272,444 |
| 1705 | 4476-A | MO install tank | $189,930 |
| 4476-B | MO install tank | ||
| 1746 | 4477 | Mo-Install Surfacant Tanks | $74,943 |
| Total | $1,095,089 | ||
ORDER
The “original costs” 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 SET ASIDE. The “original costs” for the 19 items in dispute are set as follows:
| LINE | SYS# | DESCRIPTION | Cost |
| 1666 | 4261 | MO-ICC batch tank miscellaneous materials | $0 |
| 1676 | 4282 | Batching Mnfld Enhancement Miscellaneous Materials | $0 |
| 1680 | 4293 | Mo Energy Recovery | $44,010 |
| 1691 | 4304 | Mo Batch Flexibility Miscellaneous Materials | $19,303 |
| 1699 | 4312 | Update blending control | $11,379 |
| 1710 | 4322 | MO Boiler system | $237,846 |
| 1715 | 4330 | MO-2 10,000 gal batch tanks | $14,986 |
| 1724 | 4358 | MO-ICC-09 upgrade | $0 |
| 1735 | 4406 | Mo-purple line materials | $1290 |
| 1739 | 4442 | ICC-03 batch flexibility | $0 |
| 1741 | 4447 | ICC-05 batch tank | $0 |
| 1742 | 4450 | ICC-08 update | $0 |
| 1743 | 4457 | ICC-01 CIP system | $157,596 |
| 1744 | 4461 | ICC-10 batching manifold mat | $0 |
| 1706 | 4467 | ICC-07 Semi bulk materials | $71,362 |
| 1745 | 4472 | ICC-06 sanitizer | $272,444 |
| 1705 | 4476-A | MO install tank | $189,930 |
| 4476-B | MO install tank | ||
| 1746 | 4477 | Mo-Install Surfacant Tanks | $74,943 |
| Total | $1,095,089 | ||
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
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 this 28th day of March, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 28th day of March, 2017, to:
Ed Corrigan: ECorrigan@stlouisco.com; Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, syoutzy@stlouisco.com
Mark Devore, Collector, MDevore@stlouisco.com;
Jacklyn Wood
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] Exhibit C was withdrawn by the Complainant prior to hearing.