Bateman v. Rinehart
2013 Mo. LEXIS 13
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Taxpayers appeal a circuit court ruling affirming STC’s classification of their vacant, 1.22-acre property as commercial for tax purposes.
- Property is located in a residential subdivision in Gladstone, zoned residential, with commercial uses adjacent to the site.
- In 2000 the city rejected a rezoning proposal to allow an unmanned gas station, citing safety, noise, and nighttime disturbance concerns.
- Taxpayers purchased the parcels in 2001, demolished the house, and left the land vacant; it was marketed as ‘retail-pad’ in 2008 without rezoning.
- Effective 2009, the Assessor reclassified to agricultural and assessed at the agricultural rate, based on a $322,100 FMV for a hypothetical commercial use; STC affirmed.
- The court reviews whether the property’s immediate most suitable economic use is commercial under section 137.016.5, applying eight enumerated factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the STC properly classified the property as commercial | Bateman argues residential use is the immediate use given zoning and obstacles. | State contends the eight factors support commercial use as immediate. | Yes; STC decision affirmed. |
| Whether current zoning is conclusive in classification | Taxpayers say zoning controls and bans immediate commercial use. | STC may classify contrary to zoning after considering all factors. | No; zoning not conclusive when other factors show otherwise. |
| Whether marketing of the property for commercial sale supports immediate commercial use | Marketing alone should not influence immediate use. | Marketing for commercial sale is a relevant factor under 137.016.5(8). | Yes; STC properly weighed the marketing evidence as support for commercial use. |
| Applicability of Algonquin and Missouri Bluffs to the case | Algonquin/Missouri Bluffs support residential/strictly limited uses due to obstacles. | Those cases are distinguishable; here obstacles to immediate commercial use exist but different. | No; STC’s determination remains supported; Algonquin distinguished but not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Algonquin Golf Club v. State Tax Comm’n, 220 S.W.3d 415 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007) (affirmed that obstacles to immediate commercial use can preclude commercial classification)
- Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture v. State Tax Comm’n, 50 S.W.3d 907 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) (held STC’s eight-factor test requires substantial evidence for immediate use)
- J.H. Berra Const. Co., Inc. v. Holman, 152 S.W.3d 281 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard of review for STC decisions)
- Savage v. State Tax Comm’n, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986) (deference to STC on factual matters; review of statutory interpretation)
- State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. banc 2003) (scope of judicial review of agency interpretations of law)
- Wehrenberg, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 352 S.W.3d 366 (Mo. banc 2011) (statutory interpretation and deference to agency findings)