STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|v.||)||Appeal No. 18-51001 & 18-51002|
|)||Parcel No. 1-11-06-24-01-18-002.00|
|ANTHONY DANIEL, ASSESSOR,||)||& 1-11-06-24-01-18-004.00|
|CLARK COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The decision of the Clark County Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainant Wyneta Fishback (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessments by the BOE.
The evidentiary hearing in this case was scheduled to begin at 11:45 a.m., November 15, 2018, at the Clark County Courthouse in Kahoka, Missouri. Complainant appeared for the evidentiary hearing but failed to prosecute the appeal contending the evidentiary hearing was null and void. Respondent Anthony Daniel, Assessor, Clark County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared pro se, who announced ready for trial. Case decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer).
Complainant appealed on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination. Complainant’s Complaints for Review asserted erroneous mapping and erroneous deeds in the city and county. Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject properties at $67,100, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017 and $17,400, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE agreed the TVM of the subject properties to be $67,100 and $17,400, as of January 1, 2017. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes these appeals to determine the TVM for the subject properties as of January 1, 2017.
The Hearing Officer enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction over these appeals is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the STC.
- The subject properties are located at 428 West Clark and 470 West Clark, Kahoka, Clark County, Missouri. The properties are identified by Parcel/Locator number 1-11-06-24-01-18-002.00 and 1-11-06-24-01-18-004.00 respectively.
- By Order dated October 16, 2018, this case was set for evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2018 at 11:45 a.m. at the Clark County Courthouse, Kahoka, Missouri.
- Complainant appeared at the Clark County Courthouse. Complainant contended the evidentiary hearing was null and void, refused to participate in the evidentiary hearing, and left the courthouse prior to the opening of the record in this appeal.
- Respondent appeared at the evidentiary hearing pro se and announced ready for trial.
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, 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.
Presumptions In Appeals
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). In order to prevail, a complainant must rebut the presumption of correct assessment by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on the tax day at issue. Hermel, 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. In an appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer still bears the burden of proof because the taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, a complainant must prove by a preponderance of substantial and persuasive the evidence 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, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).
Although Complainant appeared she failed to prosecute the appeals and failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVMs’ of the subject properties were correct. Complainant contended the evidentiary hearing was null and void.
Because Complainant failed to prosecute the appeals and failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the BOE presumptions, the BOE’s determinations of TVM of the subject properties are AFFIRMED.
Application for Review
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, 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 appeal is based may result in summary denial. Section 138.432 RSMo 2000.
The Collector of Clark 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 2000, as amended.
Any Finding of Fact that is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision that is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.
SO ORDERED December 4, 2018.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 4th day of December, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainants, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Complainant appeared at the previous evidentiary hearing in Appeal No. 18-51000 in which Kristy Fishback was the Complainant. Complainant left prior to the scheduled time for her evidentiary hearing, but also contended the evidentiary hearings were null and void.