Iron County v. State Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 18 April 1972
• Docket Number: No. 57231,No. 1,57231,1
• Citation: Iron County v. State Tax Commission, 480 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1972)
• Parties: IRON COUNTY, Missouri, a body corporate and politic, et al., Respondents, v. The STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, et al., Respondents, and The Ruberoid Company, a division of GAF Corporation, and City of Annapolis, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 65

480 S.W.2d 65

IRON COUNTY, Missouri, a body corporate and politic, et al Respondents, v.The STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri, et al., Respondents and The Ruberoid Company, a division of GAF Corporation, and City of Annapolis, Appellants.

No. 57231.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 18, 1972.

Motion for Rehearing or for Transfer to Court En Banc Denied

May 15, 1972.

Boyle, Priest, Elliott & Weakley, St. Louis, for Iron County.

John C. Danforth, by Richard L. Wieler, Jefferson City, for State State Tax Commission.

Dick H. Woods, John K. Bestor, George E. Gibson, George E. Feldmiller, Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers, & Fizzell, Kansas City, for Ruberoid Co., a Division of General Aniline & Film Corporation, and City of Annapolis.

BARDGETT, Judge.

This appeal was taken by The Ruberoid Company, a division of GAF Corporation, and the City of Annapolis, Missouri.Respondents are Iron County, Missouri, Selwyn Light, Assessor of Iron County, Missouri, and The State Tax Commission of Missouri.South Iron School District R--1 is an intervenor-respondent.

Respondents have moved this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order entered by the Circuit Court is not an appealable order, and appellants have opposed this motion.

While the ultimate issue at this stage of the proceeding is whether or not the order of the Circuit Court is an appealable order, the crux of the matter is whether or not the 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' entered by the State Tax Commission constitute substantial compliance with Chapter 536(Administrative Procedure and Review) and in particular with § 536.090, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which requires that the decision of the Agency (State Tax Commission)'* * * shall include or be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.'With respect to the findings of fact, § 536.090, supra, states, 'The findings of fact shall be stated separately from the conclusions of law and shall include a concise statement of the findings on which the agency bases its order.'(Emphasis supplied.)

The Memorandum Order entered by the Circuit Court of Iron County on July 14, 1971 suffices to set forth the chronology of events as well as the action the Circuit Court took with respect to the order of the State Tax Commission.It is as follows:

'The matter of the assessment of The Ruberoid Company for the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 are considered as a single case.

'When the Iron County Board of Equalization upheld the assessment made by the Iron County Assessor on the leasehold interest of Ruberoid, Ruberoid appealed to the State Tax Commission, contending that the assessment was unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary and capricious.

'The State Tax Commission heard the matter and made findings of fact, conclusions of law and rendered its decision adversely to appellants, stating that: 'The assessment placed by the Assessor of Iron County on Ruberoid's leasehold interest in the real property leased by it from City as of January 1, 1966, 1967 and 1968, is unfair, improper and excessive.'

'The decision of the State Tax Commission appealed to the Circuit Court, the matter heard and briefed.

'The Court finds that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision as entered by the State Tax Commission in the within cause for the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 do not conform to the requirements of Section 536.090 RSMo, 1959(V.A.M.S.) in that the Findings of Fact, and particularly paragraphs Eight (8) and Nine (9) thereof do not include a concise statement of the findings on which the Commission bases its order.

'That the assessor's assessment is 'unfair, improper and excessive,' is but a bare conclusion.The conclusion may be entirely accurate and correct, but what is the basis of the Commission's finding?

'The fair, proper and correct assessed valuation may well be $113,691 for the year 1966; $140,874 for year 1967 and $95,584 for the year 1968, but where in the Findings of Fact do we find a concise statement or summary forming the basis for this bare conclusion?

'It is true that the very first sentence states that: 'The Commission finds from the evidence before it that . . .'The transcript of the evidence contains some 280 pages, with numerous exhibits and the Court perhaps could arrive at the same decision the Commission reached by carefully sifting page by page through the transcript and exhibits.Section 536.090 R.S.Mo., 1959(V.A.M.S.) places a burden on the Commission to set forth in the Findings of Fact a concise statement of the findings on which the agency bases its order.This has not been done.

'July 14, 1971.

'It is the Order of the Court that the matter be remanded to the Commission with the direction that it again examine the whole record for each of the three (3) years in question, and if a majority of the commissioners so desire, re-open the entire matter, make appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as directed by Sec. 536.090 and give notice of its action as required by Law.'

It is from the above order of the Circuit court that appellants have taken this appeal.Set forth, infra, are the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the State Tax Commission in its FileNo. 1966--233 as it is representative of the Findings of Fact, etc., of the State Tax Commission in the other two matters involved in this case, the same being State Tax Commission FileNo. 1967--202and1968--130.

'BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

'In the Matter of the Assessment of THE RUBEROID COMPANY and

CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, IRON COUNTY, MISSOURI

FileNo. 1966--233

'FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

'FINDINGS OF FACT

'The Commission finds from the evidence before it that:

'1.Petitioner, The Ruberoid Company(hereinafter referred to as 'Ruberoid') is a divisions of GAT Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and is authorized to do business in the State of Missouri.It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling building materials including asphalt shingles surfaced with mineral granules.

'2.The City of Annapolis(hereinafter referred to as the 'City') is a municipality duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri and is located in Iron County, Missouri.City is the owner of 82.75 acres of land situated within its boundaries and of an industrial plant located thereon consisting of buildings, improvements, machinery, and all equipment land owned by Ruberoid on which there land owned by Ruberiod on which there is a granite quarry.

'3.Ruberoid and City entered into a lease dated October 1, 1963, pursuant to the Industrial Development Act, No. 71 790--71.850, RSMo1961 Supp., now renumbered No. 100,010(Sic)--100.190, RSMo1967 Cum. Supp.(V.A.M.S.).City contracted to issue industrial revenue bonds in the principal amount of $5,000,000.From the proceeds thereof it agreed to purchase from Ruberoid the 82.75 acres referred to above for $25,000 and, with the remainder of the bond proceeds, to pay for construction thereon of a manufacturing and industrial plant (including machinery and equipment suitable for extraction, processing, storage and sale of ores, minerals and related products) for use by Ruberoid as lessee.The land and plant were referred to as the facility.

'4.The basic term of the lease was for twenty years, with options to renew for fifteen successive terms of five years each.The industrial revenue bonds to be issued by City likewise were payable over this twenty-year period, and the rental payments were calculated and pledged to pay the interest and principal payments on the bonds as they came due.These rental payments, commencing September 15, 1965, and ending March 15, 1983, aggreated $7,047,318.90.The lease provided for payment of additional rentals of $1,000 per year, to be increased to $8,000 per year if City should issue general obligation bonds to construct or acquire a municipal water-works system.The increased amount was not to extend beyond December 31, 1982, and was subject to reduction of not to exceed $1,000 per year if state, county, school or city ad valorem taxes were assessed against the facility.The renewal options all called for annual rentals of $1,000.In addition, Ruberoid was to pay for all insurance, repairs, maintenance and utilities.Ruberoid also agreed to pay all taxes and assessments, general and special, if any, assessed against the facility or tenant's interest therein under the lease.City agreed to cooperate with Ruberoid to contest any such assessments and Ruberoid was given the right in its name or City's name, or both, to contest any such assessments.

'5.The lease provided further that if the City became empowered under the laws of Missouri to sell or otherwise dispose of the facility, Ruberoid would have, after August 1, 1973, in option to purchase.The option price was fixed at the full amount then required to redeem all outstanding revenue bonds (taking into account any sums on hand at the time in the principal and interest account for that purpose) plus $1.00.If all bonds had been retired when the option was exercised, the option price was to be $1.00.

'6.The facility was completed and first became operational in August, 1965, at a total effective cost of $5,369,912, being $25,000 for the land and $5,344,912 for the improvements.

'7.As of January 1, 1966, at which time the remaining term of the lease was 18 years, the Assessor of Iron County made an assessment against Ruberoid on the leasehold interest in the City's real property and improvements thereon in the total amount of $1,238,400.Ruberoid and City duly appealed the assessment to the Iron County Board of Equalization which made no change in the assessment.Thereafter, pursuant to and within the time required by law, Ruberoid and City filed an appeal to the State Tax Commission of Missouri.The Commission duly notified all parties that hearing would be held before the Commission in...