Barbara & Michael Starmer v. Department of Revenue

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD FIL, : : }
JUN 09 2022
Montana Tax Appeal Board

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER, CASE Ne: PT-2021-30
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER,
v. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
STATE OF MONTANA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal of a decision by the Missoula County Tax Appeal Board
(CTAB) granting Barbara and Michael Starmer (Taxpayers) a partial reduction in
value on their property located at 8721 B Ranch Club Road, Missoula, Montana. The
CTAB hearing was held on October 20, 2021, and the decision was issued October 27,
2021. The Taxpayers timely appealed that outcome to the Montana Tax Appeal Board
(MTAB) on November 17, 2021. We modify the CTAB’s determination, and for the
reasons discussed below, find that the cost method of appraisal as calculated by the
Department of Revenue (DOR) provides the best indicator of value; therefore, we

assign a value of $451,940 to the subject property.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

Whether CTAB and DOR erred in arriving at their respective market values.

EXHIBIT LIST
The following evidence was submitted at the hearing:
Taxpayer Exhibits:
1. Property Assessment Division Sales Packet
2. Townhome # Actually Sold 2018-2019

3. Comparables on Your Sheet

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER vy. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Not moved for admission
Comparable Sales Report Tax Year 2021

Not moved for admission

DM S

Chapwood Index — The Real Cost of Living Increase Index vs. Consumer
Price Index
8. Shadow Government Statistics

9. Calculate Market Value

DOR Exhibits:

A. DOR CTAB Exhibits: Aerial Photo, AB26, AB26 Determination Letter,
Property Record Card, and Comparable Sales Report with Adjustments
Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) Calculations
Adjusted Sale Price
Comparable Sales Calculation

Comparability Points

amu Oo 8

Weighted Estimate

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The DOR initially assigned a market value of $475,600 to the subject property.
Ex. A, at 000009. On June 14, 2021, the Taxpayers filed an AB-26 request for an
informal classification and appraisal review. Ex. A, at 000003. Upon a site inspection
triggered by the AB-26 request, there was an adjustment in the finished square footage
of basement from 1,214 square feet to 1,074 square feet which resulted in a market
value reduction. /d., at 000007. The DOR sent the Taxpayers an AB-26 Determination
letter, dated September 3, 2021, reflecting the reduction in value to $466,600. Jd.

The Taxpayers appealed that adjusted value to the CTAB on September 9,
2021, and a hearing was held by the CTAB on October 20, 2021. The CTAB granted a
partial reduction in value to $442,556, by calculating the value based on an average of
the sale price per square foot of the five comparable sales selected by the DOR. MTAB
Dkt. 1. The Taxpayer appealed to MTAB on November 17, 2021, per Mont. Code
Ann § 15-2-301. Jd. The MTAB hearing was conducted in Helena on March 29, 2022,

at which the following were present:

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

a. Barbara Starmer, Taxpayer; and
b. Dave Burleigh, DOR Counsel; Michelle Staples, DOR Area Manager.
The record includes all materials submitted to CTAB, a recording of the CTAB
hearing, all materials submitted to MTAB with the appeal, exhibits submitted by the
parties prior to and at the MTAB hearing, and the transcript of the MTAB hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. To whatever extent the foregoing findings of fact may be construed as

conclusions of law, they are incorporated accordingly.

2. The DOR initially valued the subject property at $475,600 for the 2021/2022
appraisal cycle, using the statutory statewide lien date of January 1, 2020. Ex.
A, at 000009; Mont. Code Ann. § 15-7-111.

3. Throughout the appeal process, the Taxpayer has requested information related
to the algorithm and calculations used by the DOR to mass appraise homes for
tax valuation purposes. After the AB-26 meeting with Amanda Walton and
Michelle Staples, the DOR provided a Comparable Sales Report with the dollar
amount adjustment for each of the variables used in the market model in
response to the Taxpayer’s request for the equations attached to the variables.
Ex. A, at 000009. On the appeal to CTAB Form 401, the Taxpayer again
requested information on the algorithms used to value her home and the
calculations used. MTAB Dkt. 1. In their decision, the CTAB stated that the
Taxpayer requested the “specific algorithms used by the DOR’s mass appraisal
program to adjust comparables to subject property.” Jd. Some of the
information the Taxpayer requested relates to how the subject property value
was calculated and some of the information relates to the software itself.
During the MTAB hearing, the Taxpayer indicated a concern with the software
itself since it was developed by an out of state company and because, as she
testified, if it was online, it was her belief it could be subject to tampering.

MTAB Arg. Tr. 14:13-14:19, 18:14-20.

3

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

4. The Taxpayer contends that the actual value of her home is 1/3 less than the
original DOR valuation of $475,600 because, she argues, the 1/3 reflects the
value increase that the artificially low interest rates cause in the loan amounts
which should not be included in the cash assessment value of her home. MTAB

Arg. Tr. 16:10-17:11; Ex. 7; Ex. 8.

5. The Taxpayer testified that “Montana appraisers are using a sales comparison
method while not making cash equivalence adjustments for artificially low

interest rates available at that time.” MTAB Hrg. Tr. 5:17-19.

6. The Taxpayer testified that “property tax appraisers are required to make a cash
value appraisal for all real estate.” MTAB Hrg. Tr. 5:24-25. Therefore,
appraisals “must be adjusted for the influence of artificially low interest rates.”
MTAB Arg. Tr. 6:1-2. The Taxpayer testified that the cash value was
considered in other states in which she has lived, and that the appraisal should
be the “actual value of the property, not including the low interest rate.” MTAB
Hrg. Tr. 6:3-6.

7. The Taxpayer testified that “Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FNEMA bonds
have an influence on the rates of home loans” requiring this adjustment. MTAB
rg. Tr. 6:15-16; Ex. 7, 8. “The interest rates are now set by the Federal
Reserve Banks” and “consequently, the price of the home is higher than the

actual cash value.” MTAB Hrg. Tr. 6:16-17; 7:15-16,; Ex. 7, 8.

8. The Taxpayer acknowledges that there is no law that she is aware of that
requires the DOR to appraise houses based on a theory of cash assessment

value. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 29:23-30:4.

9. The Taxpayer calculated her own market value by selecting comparable sales
from the list of all Missoula sales provided to her by DOR and averaging their

value per square foot. The Starmers removed patio homes and condos from the

4

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

10.

11.

12.

list of sales in Exhibit 1, then calculated the average sale price for townhomes

in the county to be $379,373.59. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 10:21-11:15,; Ex. 1, 2.

Utilizing the actual sale prices of the DOR’s comparable sales, without
adjustment for date of sale or other differences from the subject, the Taxpayer
calculated an average sale price of $415,400. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 11:15-12:16; Ex.
3, 5. The Taxpayer testified that “it is square footage and condition and
location that actually determine the final sale value.” MTAB Hrg. Tr. 12:17-18.
The Taxpayer also found an average sale price of $371,686.63 by utilizing the
sale price of townhomes within a square foot range from 1,750 square feet to

2,800 square feet. MTAB Arg. Tr. 12:19-23; Ex. 3.

Area manager, Michelle Staples, testified that in the DOR mass appraisal
process, all of the properties that need to be appraised are identified and then
visited for external measurements and review of other characteristics like
bedroom count, bathroom count, heating source, basement, basement finish,
condition, location, and quality. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 34:16-23. That information is
then inputted into the Orion mass appraisal software system and sketched into
an Apex software which calculates the square footage. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 34:24-
25. This is then used to set the value using either the cost approach or the

market approach. MTAB Arg. Tr. 34:25-35:2.

Ms. Staples also testified to the DOR mass appraisal modeling process. MTAB
Arg. Tr. 35:5-36:25. The sales that have occurred in the two years before the
lien date, in this case 2018 and 2019, are validated by the DOR appraisers and
then all validated sales are entered into the Orion system. /d. Those sales are
then stratified to neighborhoods and the property types within the
neighborhoods. Jd. A land model is created with the stratified sales and the
modeler works with the appraiser to ensure the model is aligned with what the
appraiser sees in practice. /d. After that, validated vacant land sales are input

to set a land valuation for every property in the county. Jd. The appraiser then

5

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

13.

14.

applies the model to the land, making adjustments for positive and negative
value influences. Jd. The modeler and appraiser work together to determine
what variables impact sale price. Jd. The modelers will then utilize the Orion
system that provides variables and co-efficiency to the variables. They run the
calculations behind those variables, and develop a value at that point in time, to
run the multiple regression analysis (MRA). /d. An automated software
program then applies the comparable sales. Jd. The modeler and appraiser then
determine the relative weights of the variables between the comparable sales
and deem which has the most impact in the market, with the area and the
square footage being the first things they look at. Jd. Once the five comparable
sales are put onto the records, costs analysts look at Marshall and Swift, RS
means, and local costs provided by local businesses to determine labor and
material cost tables. Jd. Appraisers are then given six months to go through all
the properties within their assigned neighborhood, look at cost value and

comparable values, and make a final value determination. Jd.

Ms. Staples testified that Taxpayer Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 could not be used to
appraise the property within the required appraisal standards because they do
not take into account all of the property characteristics the DOR would
consider in appraising the property and they contain information from sales

occurring after the lien date. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 39:14-40:17.

Comparability points are measurements of comparability that are determined
by the weights the modeler and appraiser put on certain characteristics and
show how similar the sales are to the subject property, with lower numbers
showing more comparability. MTAB Arg. Tr. 41:8-18; Ex. A, at 00015; Ex. 5.
The DOR has a policy of more closely examining comparable sales when they
have comparability scores nearing or exceeding 200 comparability points. If at
or exceeding 200 comparability points, DOR looks more closely to determine

where the high number is coming from. MTAB Arg. Tr. 41:19-42:8.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

The DOR does account for deterioration of the property in its appraisal and in
this case did adjust the value of the driveway from $4,709 to $970 because of
depreciation. MTAB Arg. Tr. 44:10-15; 46:14-24; Ex. A, at 000014.

On the property record card, neighborhood 2.1 is the Mullan Ranch Club Area.
MTAB Frg. Tr. 49:1-4; Ex. A, at 000010. The “K” following the neighborhood

number indicates that the property is a townhome or condo. Jd.

The DOR market model for this neighborhood only used townhomes and
condos. MTAB Arg. Tr. 49:5-7.

In Missoula County, the whole county is used by the DOR to establish the
market area and then neighborhoods are clustered together. MTAB Hg. Tr.
49:10-18. When the system searches for comparable sales, it will try to stay
within the same neighborhood cluster as neighborhood is one of the higher
weighted variables. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 49:21-50.:9; See also MTAB Hrg. Tr.
76:10-19. Additional weights are added to tell the system what neighborhoods
to pull from if there are no comparable sales available in the subject property’s
neighborhood. /d. In this case, that secondary neighborhood in the
neighborhood cluster is neighborhood 4, the Rattlesnake area which is why the

Brookside comparable was chosen. Jd.

In this case, grade factor, home type (townhome), and neighborhood were the

top three weighted factors. MTAB Arg. Tr. 75:14-17; Ex. E.

The MRA value is calculated using the coefficients that are derived through the
Orion system by the modelers and appraisers. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 52:5-7; Ex. B.

In most cases, the coefficients are a price per square foot. MTAB Hrg. Tr.
56:14-19; Ex. B. These coefficients multiplied by the property characteristics
arrive at the MRA value. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 56:20-21; Ex. B.

7

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Ms. Staples testified that the MRA value in this case is high because within the
600 sales that developed the market model, the average size is 1200 square
feet. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 51 21 -52:2. The subject property is much larger with over
2,000 square feet above grade and an additional 1,000 square feet below grade
which skews the MRA high. Jd. The MRA value generated by the analysis was
excluded under standard procedure as discussed below and was, therefore, not

included in the final comparable sales calculation. Jd.

When determining the comparable sales value, the weighted estimate of the
subject and the five adjusted sales prices are arrayed. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 52:17-
52:24; Ex. D. Then, the high and low values are excluded, leaving the three
middle values which are then averaged. /d. That value is rounded to the nearest

100". Id.

The weighted estimate of the subject property, around $435,000 in this case, is
determined by looking at the adjusted sales prices of the comparable sales.
MTAB Hrg. Tr. 53:4-55:8,; Ex. F. The contributory value of each comparable is
determined by how many adjustments were made, thus determining the

comparability points. Id.

The weighted estimate is included within the market value calculation which

Ms. Staples testified, is part of appraisal methodology. MTAB Arg. Tr. 77:3-10.

The DOR accounts for the fact that a subject property is a townhome or condo
in the valuation by looking at the townhome variable and the coefficient related
to that variable which looks at all of the sales in the model to find how the
variable affects the value. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 57:1-5; Ex. B. In this case, the
coefficient was approximately negative $40,000, meaning that townhomes

were selling for about $40,000 less than otherwise comparable single-family

homes. /d.

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER y. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Ms. Staples testified that these coefficients, produced by the Orion software,
are verified by what the modeler and appraiser are seeing in the market though
there is generally no evidence in the record to document this process. MTAB

rg. Tr. 57:16-20.

However, the model does run statistical analysis and gives an r squared number
to demonstrate accuracy, with one being the most accurate. MTAB Hrg. Tr.
58:3-23; Ex. 10. In this case, the r squared is 0.87, which in Ms. Staples

experience, is reliable when considering the number of occurrences. Jd.

With an r squared value of 0.8736, the standard of error in the valuation could

be up to $34,744.43. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 68:9-21; Ex. 10.

To further ensure accuracy, Tyler Technologies, the owner of the Orion
software, runs quality assurance testing in conjunction with the DOR before the

final determination of value. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 59:6-13.

A paired sale is when a property transfers twice within a short time period.
MTAB Hrg. Tr. 65: 15-17. Paired sales can support and confirm the
appreciation within a market. MTAB Arg. Tr. 65:02-25.

Comparable sales 1, 2, and 3 were all paired sales. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 66: 1-6; Ex.
A, at 000015-000016. Comparable 1 sold in 2017 and then again in 2019 for
approximately 13% more than it did in 2017. Jd. Comparable 2 sold in 2018
and then again in 2019 for approximately 20% more than it did in 2018. Jd.
Comparable 3 sold in 2018 and then again in 2019 for approximately 20%
more than it did in 2018. Id

The Taxpayers’ property value increased approximately 18% in the 2021/2022
DOR valuation cycle which aligns with the appreciation the paired sales
demonstrated. MTAB Hrg. Tr. 67:3-6; Ex A, at 000010.

9

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Montana Tax Appeal Board is an independent agency not affiliated with
the Montana Department of Revenue. Mont. Const., Art. VIII § 7; Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-2-101. The Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the CTAB’s decision to
the MTAB. Therefore, this Board maintains jurisdiction to hear and decide this
matter. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301.

The Board may hear appeals de novo. Dept. of Revenue v. Burlington N., 169
Mont. 202, 213-14, 545 P.2d 1083 (1976). “A trial de novo means trying the
matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had
been previously rendered.” McDunn v. Arnold, 2013 MT 138, § 22, 303 P.3d
1279, ¢ 22.

The Board’s order is final and binding upon all parties unless changed by judicial

review. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(6).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To whatever extent the following conclusions of law may be construed as

findings of fact, they are incorporated accordingly.

“All taxable property must be appraised at 100% of its market value...” Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-8-111.

“In connection with any appeal under [Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301], the state
board is not bound by common law and statutory rules of evidence or rules of
discovery and may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision. To the extent that

this section is in conflict with the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, this

section supersedes that act.” Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(5).

DOR is entitled to a “presumption of correctness if its decisions are pursuant to

an administrative rule or regulation, and the rule or regulation is not arbitrary,

10

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER vy. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

41.

42.

43.

44.

capricious or otherwise unlawful.” Burlington N. Inc., 169 Mont. at 214, 545
P.2d at 1090. However, DOR cannot rely entirely on the presumption in its
favor and must present a modicum of evidence showing the propriety of their
action. Western Air Lines v. Michunovich, 149 Mont. 347, 353, 428 P.2d 3, 7
(1967).

The Taxpayer bears the burden of proving the error of DOR’s decision.
Farmers Union Cent. Exch. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 272 Mont. 471, 476, 901 P.2d
561, 564 (1995); Western Air Lines, 149 Mont. at 353, 428 P.2d at 7.

“Assessment formulations’ by [the Montana Tax Appeal Board] should be
upheld unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.” Peretti v.
Dep’t of Revenue, 2016 MT 105, ¢ 15, 383 Mont. 340, 344, 372 P.3d 447, 450
(citing O’Neill v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2002 MT 130, § 23, 310 Mont. 148, 155,
49 P.3d 43, 47); see Northwest Land & Dev. v. State Tax Appeal Bd., 203
Mont. 313, 317, 661 P.2d 44, 47 (1983) overruled on other grounds by DeVoe
v. Dep’t of Revenue, 263 Mont. 100, 866 P.2d 228 (1993).

While the Board does understand the CTAB’s attempt to fairly value the
Taxpayer’s home, the approach was based on an average of the comparable
sales considered instead of legally required valuation based on adjusted
comparable sales. MTAB has been given the mandate by the Montana State .
Legislature to find the market value of the property and the CTAB’s valuation
method was not consistent with best appraisal practices. The Missoula County

Tax Appeal Board decision is not affirmed.

The testimony of the DOR during the MTAB hearing left the Board in question
of the adequacy of 2 of the 5 comparable sales used for the valuation of the
Taxpayer’s property value using the market sales method of valuation.
Comparable 4 had a high comparability score of 188 while comparable 5 had a
high comparability score of 195. The DOR witness testified that a high

11

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

comparability score over 200 should be “used with caution” but did not clarify
the importance of a score of 200 and why this was the line in the sand. This left
the Board in the position to decide the adequacy of the scores under, but near
200. Without a clear explanation and understanding, the Board is hesitant to
accept the scores nearing 200 as adequate comparable sales in this appeal. The
removal of these comparable sales forced the Board to question the valuation
provided by the model. Without 5 acceptable comparable sales, the sales
comparison method is a less reliable indicator of market value. We find that the
DOR did not provide enough explanation to give the Board confidence in two
of the comparables relied upon to calculate final market value which left the

Board in question that the market sales approach was the most reliable.

45. “[T]he Legislature intended the Department to utilize both the cost approach
and the market data approach, depending upon the available market data, when
it assesses property and estimates market value.” Albright v. State, 281 Mont.

196, 208, 933 P.2d 815, 823 (1997).

46. The Taxpayer argued that state law requires cash value appraisal. However,
Montana law does not require a cash value appraisal as suggested by the
Taxpayer, but instead requires a fair market value appraisal. Mont. Code Ann. §

15-8-111.

47. The Taxpayer stated that the DOR did not oblige her request to provide the
information and algorithms from the Orion computer software, which was
developed by an out-of-state company, that is used by the DOR for modeling
the state’s property values. The DOR indicated that its inability to obtain and
share this information was based, at least in part, on the program’s proprietary
information. The Taxpayer admitted that the modeling software’s calculations
could be correct and that the Taxpayer’s concerns were based on her concerns
about other non-industry related voting tabulation software as well as the fact

that the Orion software was developed outside of Montana.

12

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER vy. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

48.

49.

The Taxpayer’s reasoning for requesting a lower valuation of her property was
based on economic concerns of artificially low interest rates and high inflation.
Although market forces do have an impact on monetary policy and interest
rates, these forces are part of what creates market data and cannot be parsed
out. MTAB has been tasked with finding the property’s market value. These
valuations are identified with dollars and the factors that dictate today’s
monetary policy are nonconsequential to the value of these dollars used to
measure the value of all Montana properties. It is also noted that interest rates
affect the market as a whole and thus impact all participants in the Montana
market which results in it being one of many government and non-government
factors that create the market in its entirety. Once a factor impacts the market,
no matter how substantial, it becomes part of the market. The Taxpayer’s
evidence was based on cash value appraisals and sought to point out flaws with
disregarding cash value appraisal theories. Montana Law requires the DOR
find the market value but does not authorize the DOR to utilize the cash value
appraisal theory presented by the Taxpayer in its process. Mont. Code Ann. $
15-8-11]. The Board was not persuaded that the evidence introduced by the
Taxpayer was reliable or relevant to the DOR's legal mandate of valuing all
Montana properties, therefore the Taxpayer has failed to meet her burden to

demonstrate the DOR incorrectly valued her property.

The Board does have some concerns regarding the Taxpayer’s limited access to
certain information and data she requested early in the appeal process and
which the DOR could have provided earlier than it did. We note that the
Taxpayer requested additional algorithm and valuation information from the
DOR during the AB-26 process and the CTAB process. The DOR did not make
much of this information readily available. While some of the information may
have been proprietary software information that the DOR did not have access
to, the DOR did provide in-depth modeling information to the Taxpayer during ~
MTAB’s discovery process with additional worksheet facsimiles provided for

the MTAB hearing. The DOR’s failure to provide this information during the

13

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD

BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

50.

51.

52.

AB-26 and CTAB process limited, to some extent, the Taxpayer from being
able to further understand and critique the DOR’s methods during the appeals

process.

MTAB believes the DOR should have provided this Taxpayer a more complete
accounting of the adjustments made between the comparable sales and the
subject property earlier in the process to allow her to use this information in the
preparation of her tax appeal. In this appeal, the information was requested and
should have been provided. While most taxpayers do not ask for this depth of

information, in this case it was requested and should have been provided earlier

in the appeal process.

This Board does not affirm the CTAB’s decision. We found two of the five
comparable sales the DOR relied upon in determining the value of the
Taxpayers’ property were questionable, and in our judgement the Taxpayers
did not overcome their burden of proof. MTAB is still required to fulfill the

Legislature’s mandate of finding the property’s market value.

Based on the above, MTAB has determined that DOR’s estimate of value using
the cost method is the most reasonable method to establish market value for the
subject property. Therefore, this Board sets the value of the subject property at
$451,940 as calculated by the DOR using the cost method.

14

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD:
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

ORDER
53. The Taxpayers’ appeal and complaint is denied.

54. The DOR is ordered to set the 2021/2022 taxable value for the property located
at 8721 B Ranch Club Road, Missoula, Montana at $451,940.

Dated this 9" day of June 2022.

Prt MA

David L. McAlpin, Chairman \ \

AOS

“~ Amie Zendron, Member

Lomi G ; a

Daniel.Zolnjkov, Member

Notice: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order by filing a petition in district
court within 60 days of the service of this Order. The Department of Revenue shall
promptly notify this Board of any judicial review to facilitate the timely transmission

of the record to the reviewing court. Mont. Code Ann. $15-2-303(2).

15

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
BARBARA & MICHAEL STARMER v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Certificate of Service

I certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law to be sent by email and United States Mail via Print & Mail

Services Bureau of the State of Montana on June 9, 2022, to:

Barbara & Michael Starmer
8721 B Ranch Club Rd.
Missoula, MT 59808

Dave Burleigh

State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Legal Services Office

P.O. Box 7701

Helena, MT 59604-7701

Kory Hofland

PAD Administrator

State of Montana, Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 7701

Helena, MT 59604-7701

Cyndi Aplin

Missoula County Tax Appeal Board
1015 Washburn

Missoula, MT 59801

' Mere

Tara M. Green, Legal Secretary

16