STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|WILLIAM & KIMBERLY WEISS,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-57001|
|TOM COPELAND, ASSESSOR,||)|
|FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSOURI,
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization (BOE) is SET ASIDE. Complainants Willliam and Kimberly Weiss (Complainants) presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Complainants appeared by counsel Jeffrey B. Hunt and Carl C. Lang.
Respondent Tom Copeland, Assessor, Franklin County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by counsel Mark S. Vincent.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainants appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true market value (TMV) of the subject property at $701,540, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE valued the subject property at $701,540, thereby sustaining Respondent’s valuation. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TMV for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
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. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on September 27, 2017, at the Franklin County Government Building, 400 East Locust, Union, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 16-7-35.0-0-000-009.600. It is further identified as 860 Karen Marie Drive, Beaufort, Franklin County, Missouri. (Complaint; Exhibit A; Exhibit 1)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of 12 acres, which are partially wooded, improved by a 4,873 square-foot, custom-built, two-story single-family home constructed in 2007. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1) The subject property includes six bedrooms; six full bathrooms; one half bathroom; approximately 2,000 square-foot basement with 674 square feet of finished area; a two-car attached garage; a one-car attached garage; a one-car attached carport; a detached garage; two open porches; two patios; three fireplaces; and an in-ground pool. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1) The exterior consists of vinyl, brick, and stone construction. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1) The subject property is located in a rural area of west-central Franklin County, approximately five miles west of Union, and is accessible by an asphalt and concrete driveway connected to U.S. Highway 50. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1) The subject property is serviced by public electricity, a well, a septic system, and LP gas. (Exhibit A; Exhibit 1)
- Assessment. Respondent set a TMV for the subject property of $701,540, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE set a TMV of the subject property at $701,540, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
- Complainant’s Evidence. To support Complainants’ opinion of value, Complainants offered as evidence the following exhibits:
|Exhibit A||Appraisal Report of Jeffrey Johnson, dated June 2, 2017|
|Exhibit B||Appraisal Report of Donald Dodd, dated July 18, 2017|
|Exhibit C||Aerial photo of mobile home park in relation to subject property|
|Exhibit D||Photo and description of metal utility outbuilding|
Respondent did not object to Complainants’ exhibits, all of which were received into the record.
Mr. Weiss testified on behalf of Complainants. Mr. Weiss testified that Complainants had purchased the subject property in April 2012 from the Bank of Washington for approximately $475,000. Mr. Weiss testified that the subject property is located near a mobile home park; is fronted by two other residential parcels with smaller, lesser-quality homes (one was nearly 100 years old and “falling down”) than the home of the subject property; and has a chicken coop, a pole barn, and a metal outbuilding. Mr. Weiss opined that the subject property’s TMV as of January 1, 2017, was $500,000.
Complainants presented the testimony of State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Jeffrey Johnson (Mr. Johnson). Mr. Johnson opined that the TMV of the subject property was $500,000. Mr. Johnson testified that the highest and best use of the subject property was as a large-lot single family residence or a farm. Mr. Johnson testified that the valuation of the subject property had been discounted because, if placed on the market, the property probably would not sell within 12 months based on the history of the subject property’s previous sale by a bank. Mr. Johnson testified that “location” of the subject property was considered to be “primary” in his opinion of the property’s TMV because the subject property was sited in an area that lacked comparable homes and was “a great distance” from any clustering of similar large custom luxury homes. Mr. Johnson testified that the town of Beaufort was in a rural area and was a lengthy driving distance from populated areas and that the subject property was unlike large custom luxury homes situated in St. Albans, which was an unincorporated, rural, country club “straddling” the St. Louis County-Franklin County line.
In arriving at an opinion of value, Mr. Johnson relied on only the sales comparison approach because the income approach and the cost approach were not applicable in this case. (Exhibit A) Mr. Johnson testified that he had reviewed sales of comparable homes in the St. Albans community but had disregarded them as comparable in his analysis because their location was too different and far superior to the location of the subject property. Mr. Johnson testified that St. Albans was considered to be a suburb of metropolitan St. Louis. Mr. Johnson testified that there were a limited number of custom home sales located in a rural setting in Franklin County within two years prior to January 1, 2017. Mr. Johnson testified that the three most similar comparable sales were located in Washington and in Villa Ridge, which were closer to St. Louis County than the subject property and inside subdivisions.
Mr. Johnson’s report analyzed the three comparables. The three comparables sold between June 2013 and May 2016. (Exhibit A) The sale prices of the comparables ranged from $395,007 to $490,000. The size of the parcels of the comparables ranged from approximately .58 acres to 10.42 acres. (Exhibit A) Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 were built in 2006 while Comparable No. 3 was built in 2003. The square footage of the three comparable ranged from 3,556 to 4,107. Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 had finished basements. All of the comparables had five bedrooms and at least three full bathrooms and one half bathroom. (Exhibit A)
All of the comparables received a 50% downward adjustment to their sale prices for location/neighborhood. (Exhibit A) A positive adjustment of 10% was made to the sale price of Comparable No. 2 due to its conditions of sale as an REO sale. (Exhibit A) A positive adjustment was made to the sale prices of Comparable No. 1 (5%) and Comparable No. 2 (15%) for the size and shape of their land parcels. A positive adjustment of 5% was made to the sale prices of Comparable Nos. 2 and 3 for quality of design and construction. (Exhibit A) All of the comparables received a 5% positive adjustment for the amount of above grade square footage, room count, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 received a 15% positive adjustment for gross living area while Comparable No. No. 3 received a 30% positive adjustment for gross living area. All three of the comparables received a 5% positive adjustment for garages, carports, finished basement, and “other features.” (Exhibit A) The adjusted sale prices of the comparables ranged from $381,417 to 412,780. (Exhibit A)
In his appraisal report, Mr. Johnson reasoned that the value of the home was $490,000. Mr. Johnson further reasoned that a newer “shed/out-building built in only 2015 with electric service” and “the circa 2015 swimming pool” had contributory value of $25,000. However, Mr. Johnson discounted the total final value estimate of $515,000 by a present value factor of .9705 due to his expectation that a sale of the subject property would take approximately 18 months given the subject property’s specialized use, condition, and location. (Exhibit A)
On cross examination, Mr. Johnson testified that he used the 50% location adjustment in his “educated opinion” because of the rural location of the subject property and the lack of similar homes to compare. Mr. Johnson testified that he had seen three or four sales from the Union area but did not use those sales as comparables due to problems with the verification of transfer of title. Mr. Johnson speculated that those sales might have been foreclosures. Mr. Johnson further testified that the proximity of the mobile home park and the nearly 100-year-old dilapidated frame home to the subject property were detrimental to its value. Mr. Johnson testified that the location adjustment in the appraisal report of Respondent’s appraiser was not sufficient.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered as evidence the testimony of Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser Donald Dodd (Mr. Dodd). Mr. Dodd opined that the subject property’s TMV as of January 1, 2017, was $645,000, which was lower than the BOE’s valuation. In support of Mr. Dodd’s opinion of value, Respondent offered as evidence Exhibit 1, Mr. Dodd’s report. Complainant did not object to Exhibit1, which was received into the record.
Mr. Dodd testified that, in arriving at his opinion of TMV, he considered the cost approach and the income approach in developing an opinion of value but determined these approaches were neither reliable nor applicable to the subject property. Mr. Dodd relied on the sales comparison approach to developing an opinion of value of the subject property. In his report, Mr. Dodd noted that no sale or transfer of the subject property had occurred within three years of the date of the appraisal. (Exhibit 1)
Mr. Dodd’s report analyzed three comparable sales. The three comparables had sold between June 2016 and August 2016. (Exhibit 1) The sale prices of the comparables ranged from $775,000 to $1,121,000. (Exhibit 1) Mr. Dodd testified that he found no comparable sales within 10 miles of the subject property. All three of Respondent’s comparables were located approximately 25 miles from the subject property in St. Albans, near the boundary line of Franklin County and St. Louis County. (Exhibit 1) All three of the comparables were given downward adjustments for location (10% for “community” instead of “rural”) and site (5% for “subdivision lot” instead of “acres”). (Exhibit 1) Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 were given downward adjustments for exterior construction (10% for stucco, brick, stone). (Exhibit 1) Comparable Nos. 1 and 2 were given downward adjustments for quality of construction (“excellent” instead of “very good”). (Exhibit 1) All three of the comparables were given substantial downward adjustments for a far greater amount of square footage of finished basement area than the subject property. (Exhibit 1) Comparable Nos. 2 and 3 were given downward adjustments for the presence of decks. (Exhibit 1) All three of the comparables were given positive adjustments for lacking a detached garage. (Exhibit 1) Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 all were similar to the subject property in that they (1) included two-story, single-family homes that exceeded 4,500 square feet and had been built within five years of the subject property; (2) included at least four bedrooms; (3) included at least four full bathrooms and one half-bathroom; (4) included full basements with some finished area; (5) included forced air heating and central air conditioning; (6) included multiple fireplaces; (7) included porches and patios; (8) included in-ground pools; and (9) included three-car garages. (Exhibit 1)
The adjusted sale prices of Comparable Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ranged from $624,250 to $683,810. (Exhibit 1) In reconciling the comparables, Mr. Dodd concluded that Comparable No. 3 was most similar to the subject property and, therefore, was given the most weight in the analysis. (Exhibit 1)
On cross-examination, Mr. Dodd testified that he had prepared an appraisal report for Respondent at the BOE hearing that had concluded a TMV of $765,000. (Exhibit B) Both of Mr. Dodd’s appraisal reports used the same comparable sales to analyze the subject property. When questioned as to why the conclusion of value in the first appraisal report was different from the conclusion of value in the second appraisal report, Mr. Dodd testified that the difference was due to the location adjustment made in the second appraisal report. (Exhibit B; Exhibit 1) Mr. Dodd admitted that he had performed the appraisals that had resulted in Exhibit B and Exhibit 1 even though he had certified on page 23 of Exhibit 1 that he had “performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the [subject property] within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.” Exhibit 1 was dated September 27, 2017. Exhibit B was dated July 18, 2017. Mr. Dodd further admitted that no mobile home parks were located near the comparable properties, which were surrounded by other luxury homes.
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – True Market Value Established.
Complainants presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2017, to be $500,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement. The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, 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 and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, 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. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. 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. Id.
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. The BOE presumption requires the taxpayer to substantial and persuasive present evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption. The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE sustained the initial valuation of Respondent, and both Complainant and Respondent are now seeking to lower the BOE’s assessment; therefore, the BOE presumption applies to both parties.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. 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).
There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC 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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783. A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “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. E.D. 1980).
In this case, Mr. Weiss testified that the TMV of the subject property was $500,000 as of January 1, 2017.
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.
In this case, Respondent presented Mr. Dodd’s report as evidence indicating a lower valuation than the value finally determined by the BOE and lower than the value previously determined by Respondent; thus, Mr. Dodd’s report was received to be considered in light of Respondent’s argument that the BOE’s valuation of the subject property should be lowered to $645,000 as of January 1, 2017.
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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).
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 deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Complainants presented the expert testimony and appraisal report of Mr. Johnson, who opined the TMV of the subject property was $500,000 as of January 1, 2017. Respondent presented the expert testimony and appraisal report of Mr. Dodd, who opined the TMV of the subject property was $645,000 as of January 1, 2017.
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, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; 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. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.
“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
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.
In this case, Complainant’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id.
Both Complainants and Respondent presented the expert testimony and appraisal reports of state certified residential real estate appraisers. Both of the appraisers used one of the three court-approved methods for valuing residential property to arrive at an opinion of TMV for the subject property, the sales comparison method. The appraisers each issued a report analyzing sales data from their chosen comparable properties. All of the comparables used by both appraisers were large, custom built, luxury single-family homes. The distinguishing factor between the appraisers’ comparables and their resulting opinions of the TMV of the subject property was the distance and location of the comparables in relation to the subject property.
In particular, Complainant’s appraiser, Mr. Johnson, credibly testified that the location of the subject property was of primary importance in determining its TMV. Although neither appraiser found comparables in locations within one mile of the subject property, Mr. Johnson, Complainants’ appraiser, utilized comparables in locations closer and more similar to the location of the subject property than the comparables utilized by Mr. Dodd, Respondent’s appraiser. Significantly, two of Complainants’ comparables included multiple acres of land even though they were inside subdivisions. Mr. Johnson found all of Complainants’ comparables to be in “vastly superior” locations to the subject property and, therefore, made a corresponding 50% downward adjustment to the comparables. All of Respondent’s comparables, however, were located on subdivision lots of one acre or less within the community of St. Albans, an exclusive country club community near the St. Louis County line, 25 miles from the subject property. Mr. Dodd gave a total 15% downward adjustment to Respondent’s comparables based on their location and site. The Hearing Officer was not persuaded that Mr. Dodd’s adjustment could sufficiently account for the difference between a large, custom-built luxury home on rural acreage near a mobile home park and a large, custom-built luxury home in an exclusive country club community.
The TMV for the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2017 is set at $95,000 residential ($500,000 TMV).
Application for Review
A party may file with the STC 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 Franklin 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 November 21, 2017.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 21st day of November, 2017, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 During his testimony, Mr. Dodd made a correction to the downward adjustment for basement finish of Comparable No. 3. According to the narrative portion of Mr. Dodd’s report, the basement of Comparable No. 3 included 2,830 square feet of finished area. According to the sales comparison grid of Mr. Dodd’s report, the basement of Comparable No. 3 included 1,314 square feet of finished area. The additional amount of adjustment, $19,000, lowered the adjusted sale price from $643,250 to $624,250.
 Mr. Johnson based his determination of superior location on the comparables’ more convenient access to major highways and proximity to more valuable high-income areas.