Source: https://stc.mo.gov/legal/kristy-fishback-v-anthony-daniel-assessor-clark-county/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:25:13+00:00

Document:
On December 4, 2018, Senior Hearing Officer John Treu (Hearing Officer) entered a Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the decision of the Board of Equalization of Clark County (BOE). Kristy Fishback (Complainant) subsequently filed an Application for Review of Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order. Anthony Daniel, Assessor of Clark County, Missouri (Respondent), filed a Response. Complainant replied by telephone.
The subject property is residential property located at 462 West Clark Street, Kahoka, Missouri.
Respondent set a true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $19,320, assessed value of $3,840. Complainant appealed to the BOE. The BOE affirmed the valuation. Complainant appealed to the State Tax Commission (STC) on the issue of overvaluation and discrimination. Complainant also alleged erroneous mapping and deeds.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted on November 15, 2018 at the Clark County Courthouse, Kahoka, Missouri. The Hearing Officer announced the appeal. Complainant appeared at the Courthouse. Complainant left the hearing room after announcing the proceedings were null and void and prior to presentation of evidence. Respondent appeared and announced ready for trial.
The Hearing Officer issued his Decision and Order on December 4, 2018 affirming the BOE as Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence.
Twenty years ago there was an audit which found “a variety of violations” and unsound fiscal practices.
For the reasons that follow, the STC finds Complainant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. The STC, having thoroughly reviewed the whole record and having considered the Hearing Officer’s Decision, the Application for Review of Complainant, Respondent’s response opposing the Application for Review and Complainant’s Reply, affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision.
The taxpayer in a STC appeal bears the burden of proof. The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the BOE’s valuation is erroneous and what fair market value should have been placed on the property.
Complainant left the hearing room without presenting evidence.
At no time has Complainant presented any evidence establishing the true value of her property on January 1, 2017.
If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Clark 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.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 19th day of February, 2019, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Complainant attached maps to the Application for Review without explanation of their evidentiary value.
The decision of the Clark County Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainant Kristy Fishback (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
The evidentiary hearing in this case was scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m., November 15, 2018, at the Clark County Courthouse in Kahoka, Missouri. Complainant appeared at 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 Complaint 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 property at $19,320, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE agreed the TVM of the subject property to be $19,320, as of January 1, 2017. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TVM for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
The Hearing Officer enters the following Decision and Order.
The subject property is located at 462 West Clark Street, Kahoka, Clark County, Missouri. The property is identified by Parcel/Locator number 1-11-06-24-01-18-003.00.
By Order dated October 16, 2018, this case was set for evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. at the Clark County Courthouse, Kahoka, Missouri.
Complainant appeared at the evidentiary hearing. Complainant contended the evidentiary hearing was null and void and refused to participate in the evidentiary hearing.
Respondent appeared at the evidentiary hearing pro se and announced ready for trial.
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.
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, Complainant failed to prosecute the appeal and failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVM of the subject property was correct. Complainant contended the evidentiary hearing was null and void.
Because Complainant failed to prosecute the appeal and failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the BOE presumption, the BOE’s determination of TVM of the subject property is AFFIRMED.
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 4th, 2018.
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.