State Tax Commission of Missouri
v.) Appeal No.08-90000
TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal dismissed for failure of prosecution.Decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization AFFIRMED.Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing. Respondent appeared pro se.Appeal dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject properties on January 1, 2007.
Complainant appealed, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization setting the appraised value of the subject property at $116,846, assessed residential value of $22,200.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Texas County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is located at 14015 Oak Drive, Plato, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 4-5-21-1-10.01.
3.By Order issued October 28, 2008, appeal was set for evidentiary hearing at
9:00 a.m., Thursday, December 4, 2008, in the Texas County Courthouse, Houston, Missouri.Complainant was advised that failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.Complainant did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.
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.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.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.
Dismissal of Appeal
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Texas County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $22,200.
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.
The Collector of Texas 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 December 8, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt=”75″ o:preferrelative=”t” path=”m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe” filled=”f”
<v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:207pt;
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 8thday of December, 2008, to:Wesley Kallemyn, 14015 Oak Drive, Plato, MO 65552, Complainant; Mike Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, Texas County Courthouse Annex, 116 E. Main, Houston, MO 65483, Attorney for Respondent; Debbie James, Assessor, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Don Troutman, Clerk, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483; Tammy Cantrell, Treasurer and ex officio Collector of Revenue, 210 N. Grand, Houston, MO 65483.
 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).