- Report: #338329
Complaint Review: Missouri State Tax Commission - Jefferson City Missouri
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Missouri State Tax Commission
Room 840, Harry S Truman State Office Building, 301 West High Street Jefferson City, 65102 Missouri, U.S.A.
Phone:
573-751-2414
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Missouri State Tax Commission Missouri State Tax Commission and Platte County tax assessment via loophole force punishment even after taxpayer fulfilled obligations. Jefferson City Missouri
Firstly, I am so disappointed in Platte County and the Missouri State Tax commission's rulings on this matter. I feel they are so grossly unfair, only equivalent to what I'd expect from some tin-pot dictatorship. It's so disappointing too, as this is my county and my state, and there are so many good people, services and departments at the county. As this is so grossly unfair, completely out of line with how I'd expect my county and my state to act to myself or other residents. I've decided to publish the proceedings for the county, state, country and world to see on RipoffReport.com. This shows how Platte County and the Missouri State Tax Commission can punish you even though you've fulfilled all your taxpayer obligations.
I haven't had any major dealings with Platte County since a few years ago when I was one of the most vocal opponents regarding the dangers of the road designs related to 2 separate commercial developments close to my house:
45 Hwy and K Hwy
45 Hwy and NW Brink-Myer road
I oppose the road designs and still do. K Hwy puts in place 2 roundabouts / traffic circles which replace a traffic problem with something more dangerous, traffic confusion at highway speed. The other development at NW Brink-Myer road has widened a little used farm gravel road, turning it into a major 3 lane intersection which was and still is blind to westbound Hwy 45 traffic. This generates a danger to Thousand Oaks and Hidden Valley subdivision traffic who now use it and assume it is safe. Basically, it is the new danger on 45 Hwy, and it could very well take on a reputation similar to the dangerous 45 Hwy and K Hwy intersection.
THE PROBLEM:
In spring 2007 we (the complainants) received a property tax assessment notice. This fulfilled our taxpayer obligations to know the tax amount to save and prepare to pay. We next, at the end of 2007, received an outrageously overvalued property tax assessment. It was out of line with the figures on spring assessment notice we received. It was out of line with the property's value (greatly exceeding the booming house prices of that time). It was out of line with any reasonable percentage increase you would expect a long term thinking responsible government would generate for its residents. We called Platte County and discovered they said they found an error with the first notice we received. They said they sent out a corrected notice 2 days after the first notice with a different assessed value matching the bill. We did not receive this correction notice, and as there is a spring cutoff to challenge an assessment value, we lost the ability to challenge the correction notice we didn't receive or know about until the end of the year. Platte County held and is holding us responsible for the problem we knew nothing about that was generated by Platte County. We took the problem to the Missouri State Tax Commission, but they too are holding us responsible for the problem generated by Platte County's error.
We are (unfortunately) fighting for the right to regain the ability to challenge the assessed value that we would have had in spring 2007 (and for future years) had Platte County not generated an error or had sent a correction notice. We want to pay our fair share, but because Platte County and Missouri State Tax commission are fighting against reality/facts and justice, we have decided to side more with Missouri State Tax commission's opinion of there being facts, unknowns, and there being a status quo. Missouri State Tax commission considers the correction notice that wasn't received a fact and part of the status quo, but we do not. Its not a fact. It did not arrive. The factual status quo is that we received one notice, and that is what we should pay, and this is also what we are fighting for. Platte County's case to be thrown out.
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT:
A response to the Missouri Tax Commission's latest response. To allow us to pay our tax bill based on the 20th March, 2007 notice we received. To allow us the opportunity to challenge the Platte County assessed property tax valuation for all years since. The Spring 2007 challenge deadline was lost due to a Platte County error and subsequent lack of any follow up to inform us they had discovered an error and that they had substantially increased our house valuation to a level we would have willingly provided the house to anyone at very short notice. The Spring 2008 deadline has also passed during this period of pleadings with the Missouri State Tax commission and Platte County.
MISSOURI TAX COMMISSIONS LETTER:
The commission tried to reject our case based on 1/ Facts and 2/ Inconclusive and In Conflict details.
Facts:
The commission attempted to boil this case down using just a few facts (of which some were fake). Just as you can't boil down a fine soup with 4 ingredients (some rotten) when you need 20 quality ones, the Missouri State Tax Commission went horribly wrong by ignoring many pertinent case ingredients provided in the pleadings, and ended up with a very bad soup.
The commission's brief list of "facts established by pleadings" is not correct. It lists items that are not facts and lacks many pertinent facts provided by the complainant in the pleadings.
1/ Is a fact. Platte County mailed a 20th March, 2007 notice and we received it.
2/ Is NOT a fact. Platte County "say", but it's not a fact that they mailed a 22nd March, 2007 notice. (The complainants did not receive the notice.)
3/ I complain that the commissioner's sentence is written in this manner. It generates additional written material and clouds the issue in favor of Platte County. It should not list anything related to March 20th. It is NOT A FACT that the March 20th notice was returned by the USPS to the assessor's office. This is simply because they didn't have a chance to as it was delivered. I demand the commission provide pinpoint accuracy and a full listing of worthwhile FACTS!
4/ Is a fact. We received the 20th notice but not the 22nd correction therefore not knowing of a correction until contacting Platte County when an outrageously overvalued tax bill arrived.
A more realistic list of the pertinent facts gathered from various pleadings:
FACT 1: Platte County mailed a notice on the 20th March, 2007.
FACT 2: Platte County mailed a Tax bill at the end of 2007 with an outrageously overvalued assessed value that didn't match the only notice the complainants received.
FACT 3: The assessment value challenging period expired in spring 2007, and also spring 2008.
FACT 4: Platte County only has a record that a correction notice was filed in their records on 22nd March, 2007, but no proof or solid details of it being mailed.
FACT 5: Platte County does not know what happened in administration, systems, extraction, and in mail processing/mailroom.
To expand on this: The Platte County record of the mailing is not accurate enough. There is no record of mailing batch. They indicate mixing of separate mailing batches by informing us it may have been sent in the first mailing's envelope that was generated 2 days before. Having experience of a professional mailroom and the guaranteed error rates associated with mailings, and the little I've heard regarding Platte County's procedures it sounds like they are begging for errors. It is a fact that an item running through a simple process stands a greater chance of success than one going through a more complex one. Platte County produced an error that forced a more complex process to try to generate a correct notice. This means that we were provided a much greater statistical chance of notice/mail process error than almost anyone else in Platte County, so this isn't as fair (regardless of if we had received the notice or not). It is also a fact that this would certainly be the place any good troubleshooter would look at first to discover the problem. At the same time, the complainants received other mail through their normal process, and the USPS delivered other mail through their normal process. Unfortunately, Platte County had a different process for the correction notice! The troubleshooter would look there first and spend a lot of time looking there before checking anything else. The troubleshooter would be back quickly to look at Platte County processes if there was nothing discovered elsewhere until the troubleshooter found the source of the problem.
FACT 6: Complainant did receive the 20th March, 2007 notice.
FACT 7: Complainant DID NOT receive the 22nd March, 2007 notice.
FACT 8: Complainant DID NOT receive the 22nd March, 2007 notice in the 20th's envelope.
FACT 9: The 22nd March, 2007's notice was not returned by the USPS to Platte County.
FACT 10: The USPS loses mail for various reasons known and unknown. The USPS document presented by the complainants in pleadings outlines the USPS lack of mailing accuracy and their desire to improve.
FACT 11: Platte County office administration said the corrected notice was sent the same day produced, possibly in the same envelope as the first notice.
FACT 12: Assessor Ms. Lisa Pope sworn statement regarding the process of the 22nd March, 2008 mailing contradicts what the Platte County office administration person said, by stating there were 2 notice mailings on different days.
FACT 13: Platte County says the 20th March, 2007 notice was sent in error.
FACT 14: A Complainant can not fix an unknown Platte County error.
FACT 15: The Platte County mailing of the notice to the complainant was fulfilled on 20th March 2007. If Platte County detected an error at that time (which is in question), the fact is the Burden of proof of mailing switches to the error generating party (Platte County in this case) in any error circumstances.
FACT 16: Platte County has no proof that the 22nd March, 2007 correction notice was mailed or made it through the USPS system.
FACT 17: Platte County's did not use any form of mail tracking procedure for this vitally important letter in which the burden of proof of mailing was on themselves.
FACT 18: We don't know the names of the people who processed the missing mail, the processes they used or the certificate of proof of mailing it.
FACT 19: Platte County has provided no information that it cares that an error occurred. They provided no details as to how the first notice error occurred. (how did the Parcel Number change?, how was it allowed? etc) They provided no details of any checks of their processes, systems, hardware or machinery in search of a bad process or the lost notice itself if it was printed.
FACT 20: Missouri State Tax Commission has shown no interest in the exact source of the problem and its remedy, but has preferred to give up troubleshooting and to punish the complainant. It is not interested in the audit trail for this document that is generating a grossly unfair and unexpected financial loss to the complainant.
FACT 21: There has been no apology from Platte County or Missouri State Tax Commission for any of the problems.
In Conflict and Inconclusive:
In the letter received from the Missouri State tax commission there was also a statement indicating information as being in conflict and inconclusive.
The Missouri State Tax Commission's labeling of the evidence as inconclusive and in conflict is wrong even in the manner the Missouri State Tax Commission incorrectly listed in this most recent May 7th, 2008 letter, never mind if all the facts the Missouri State Tax Commission chose not to list had been included. The words "in conflict" and "inconclusive" were used without any explanation from Missouri State Tax Commission as to what was in conflict or inconclusive. More evidence that Missouri State Tax Commission prefers to provide obscurity rather than clarity, with what seems to be a determined intent to deny fairness to the complainant. In addition, if there was conflicting and inconclusive information, anyone would expect the situation to resort to the status quo, reverting to the only item not inconclusive or in conflict, the delivered 20th March 2007 notice.
There is no conflict regarding the complainants receipt of tax notice. It is not inconclusive that we received it. We received a notice. That is what we planned, saved for and prepared to pay, and that is what we should and shall pay.
The only conflicts that make the matter inconclusive are within Platte County.
It is NOT A FACT that they sent the 22nd March, 2007 mailing, as it was not received by the complainants.
It is NOT A FACT the USPS received the 22nd March, 2007 mailing, as it was not received by the complainants and was not returned to Platte County by the USPS.
It is NOT A FACT that the notice was fully processed or that it left Platte County. The complainants didn't receive it, the USPS didn't return it to them, there is no certified proof of mailing or receipt, and the sworn testimony of the assessor regarding mail processing IS IN CONFLICT with the Platte County staff.
We reside in the Show-Me state. Show-Me the proof of mailing, USPS, UPS, Fed-EX, or even a Platte county procedure that certifies we physically received the correction notice. If this can't be shown to us, all the Platte County conflicts and inconclusive information leave only these facts: A notice was received by the complainant. Platte County did not ensure their error was corrected. It's too late to correct the error now. The only statement sent and received was the one sent on 20th March, 2007. We should be allowed to pay the initial notice amount if that is what we desire to pay.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM:
When the notice arrived at the correct address/parcel number, anyone would expect it to have the same/correct parcel number assigned to the address. The assessed tax figures also looked similar to the prior tax period.
For any real business, when a problem occurs with a process or product it is imperative to discover what went wrong. In the unusual and rare times when a business gives up looking or the cause can't be pinpointed, at the very least any real organization will find it essential to mark the most likely source of the problem.
I have no details of how and who at Platte County managed to corrupt our file record, and I have no idea of who or why someone was allowed to touch the file record for that matter. Is the corrupting of a valid file record a normal everyday occurrence at Platte County? If it is, Missouri State Tax Commission should be investigating the problem. I would hope it isn't an everyday occurrence, and that leads me to believe something very strange happened. Platte County corrupted the file record then said they corrected it. Their corrupt notice arrived in the mail and the corrected one did not. Is missing mail an everyday occurrence at Platte Co? If it is, then Missouri State Tax Commission should be investigating the problem. The procedure Platte County uses for corrected notices and mailings isn't used very much. This is a key point, as it's under these circumstances when errors are much more likely. Platte County corrupted our file record. Our information had then to be processed through a different than normal, little used path. The corrected notice didn't arrive at its intended destination, then Platte County and Missouri State Tax commission hold us totally responsible.
I find it strange that we are held responsible for problems relating to a sequence of events of a process that was initiated by Platte County corrupting our file information (which I find to be very strange in itself). I find it very difficult to fathom how or why the security of our file record was breached. How was it possible to access the record without both address and parcel number if we are in turn being held responsible for not checking both address and parcel number on the corrupt notice sent to us. This is another key point, because it means the term "mistake" really doesn't apply. Whether it's a computer system lacking secure validated access methods or simply lack of skills in its use. So there is either administrative systems problems or something else even more strange at Platte County that accessed and corrupted the file record initiating the string of problems.
How can Missouri State Tax commission allow a system that has a hole in it that allows for corruption? How can you allow a system that allows its data integrity to be very easily broken and its data security so easily breached? How can you allow this Platte County system, that provides anyone with access to it, the opportunity to create a financial problem for someone where they have no recourse? How can you allow a process that allows for things such as mistakes, deliberate record changing or even revenge to be a part of fully approved, unquestionable Missouri State Tax Commission policy? I know that an organization that provides a fair service should not allow a system design that grants the above. Your system provides for that ability. An avenue that can provide, for example, a kick to a customer if desired. How can you allow a system with this feature?
SUMMARY:
I feel tortured, and I do mean tortured. I feel that you know you are generating pain from someone that has done everything right, never mind nothing wrong. How can you have a system that makes a resident feel tortured for absolutely nothing, a piece of mail we didn't receive? Even if you can't figure out what was wrong, why would you punish on the complainant when they received their notice and in addition there is an error on Platte Countys plate?
If the complainants had been sent ONE (the first) notice that they didn't receive and they didn't contact Platte County for the information, the current situation would be fair. This is not what happened. We received our notice. The fact is that it's grossly unfair to punish a Platte County, Missouri resident for a notice that was NOT FACTUALLY sent, especially when they FACTUALLY received a notice fulfilling their taxpayer obligations to know the tax amount to save and prepare to pay.
By punishing us solely for not receiving a piece of mail, the commission is unjustly separating the mail delivery error from the Platte County administration problems. The Missouri State Tax Commission can't separate them. They are bound together. The attempted corrected notice mailing only occurred because of the Platte County administrative system problems. We will not be accountable for a single bound failed process that was initiated by Platte County administration problems which have by far the greatest reasons to be searched first for the source reason for the missing mail.
Missouri State Tax Commission neglected consideration of the important and pertinent facts of our case enabling a recommendation of rejection. Missouri State Tax Commission neglected consideration of the Platte County administration errors in the Platte County administration and mailing system as the most probable reason for the second notice delivery failure, enabling them a recommendation of rejection. Missouri State Tax Commission has neglected to study the problems in detail. Missouri State Tax Commission seems not interested in what went wrong, the faulty Platte County administration procedures and their lack of data and system integrity and security.
We have acted in clear and fair manner, but as Platte County and the Missouri State Tax Commission are not presenting clarity and fairness, and are imposing grossly unfair decisions regarding the problem, I demand the day to swear on oath to all the FACTS listed above. Anyone that makes a mistake has the choice to fix it properly or pay the price if it's not fixed properly. Platte County chose to gamble with the mailing of the correction of error letter. They lost their gamble, and unfortunately Platte County must pay the price for their administrative problem and inability to correct it properly. You must not punish the complainants any more for these Platte County errors. You must throw out Platte County's case and allow us to pay based on the 20th March 2007 notice. We have gone above and beyond with Platte County and the Missouri State Tax Commission to allow a fair resolution to the problems, indicating we do not want the County of Platte to go without a fair collection of tax on our property. Platte County has ignored our situation and the Missouri State Tax Commission has chosen to ignore pertinent facts, driving our case to being dismissed when all the facts show only Platte County in error.
Commissioners Bruce Davis, Jennifer Tidwell and Charles Nordwald. Senior Hearing Officer W.B. Tichenor. You have a choice to put your names alongside the term "fair".
You are currently trying to punish the complainant for:
1/ Receiving a tax notice and preparing for the good part of a year for its payment.
2/ Platte County administrative system problems with land parcel numbers.
3/ Platte County failure to certify and ensure a Platte County error was corrected.
It is easier for the Missouri State Tax Commission to ignore the problems in Missouri county offices and Platte County, and simply punish the tax payers, even if the results of ignoring problems is repetitive, highly inefficient and very costly and wasteful to Missouri. I will consider you "grossly unfair" if you continue to punish us for Platte County's administrative problems. I instead demand you put your names forward to fairness by:
1/ Denying the motion to dismiss.
2/ Throwing out the Platte County case.
3/ Ordering Platte County to only accept payment for the 20th March, 2007 notice.
4/ Requiring Platte County assessment value adjustment beyond its deadlines of all years since this problem because of the vast overvaluation.
Show-Me fairness at the Missouri State Tax Commission.
BostonTea
Rural, Missouri
U.S.A.
I haven't had any major dealings with Platte County since a few years ago when I was one of the most vocal opponents regarding the dangers of the road designs related to 2 separate commercial developments close to my house:
45 Hwy and K Hwy
45 Hwy and NW Brink-Myer road
I oppose the road designs and still do. K Hwy puts in place 2 roundabouts / traffic circles which replace a traffic problem with something more dangerous, traffic confusion at highway speed. The other development at NW Brink-Myer road has widened a little used farm gravel road, turning it into a major 3 lane intersection which was and still is blind to westbound Hwy 45 traffic. This generates a danger to Thousand Oaks and Hidden Valley subdivision traffic who now use it and assume it is safe. Basically, it is the new danger on 45 Hwy, and it could very well take on a reputation similar to the dangerous 45 Hwy and K Hwy intersection.
THE PROBLEM:
In spring 2007 we (the complainants) received a property tax assessment notice. This fulfilled our taxpayer obligations to know the tax amount to save and prepare to pay. We next, at the end of 2007, received an outrageously overvalued property tax assessment. It was out of line with the figures on spring assessment notice we received. It was out of line with the property's value (greatly exceeding the booming house prices of that time). It was out of line with any reasonable percentage increase you would expect a long term thinking responsible government would generate for its residents. We called Platte County and discovered they said they found an error with the first notice we received. They said they sent out a corrected notice 2 days after the first notice with a different assessed value matching the bill. We did not receive this correction notice, and as there is a spring cutoff to challenge an assessment value, we lost the ability to challenge the correction notice we didn't receive or know about until the end of the year. Platte County held and is holding us responsible for the problem we knew nothing about that was generated by Platte County. We took the problem to the Missouri State Tax Commission, but they too are holding us responsible for the problem generated by Platte County's error.
We are (unfortunately) fighting for the right to regain the ability to challenge the assessed value that we would have had in spring 2007 (and for future years) had Platte County not generated an error or had sent a correction notice. We want to pay our fair share, but because Platte County and Missouri State Tax commission are fighting against reality/facts and justice, we have decided to side more with Missouri State Tax commission's opinion of there being facts, unknowns, and there being a status quo. Missouri State Tax commission considers the correction notice that wasn't received a fact and part of the status quo, but we do not. Its not a fact. It did not arrive. The factual status quo is that we received one notice, and that is what we should pay, and this is also what we are fighting for. Platte County's case to be thrown out.
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT:
A response to the Missouri Tax Commission's latest response. To allow us to pay our tax bill based on the 20th March, 2007 notice we received. To allow us the opportunity to challenge the Platte County assessed property tax valuation for all years since. The Spring 2007 challenge deadline was lost due to a Platte County error and subsequent lack of any follow up to inform us they had discovered an error and that they had substantially increased our house valuation to a level we would have willingly provided the house to anyone at very short notice. The Spring 2008 deadline has also passed during this period of pleadings with the Missouri State Tax commission and Platte County.
MISSOURI TAX COMMISSIONS LETTER:
The commission tried to reject our case based on 1/ Facts and 2/ Inconclusive and In Conflict details.
Facts:
The commission attempted to boil this case down using just a few facts (of which some were fake). Just as you can't boil down a fine soup with 4 ingredients (some rotten) when you need 20 quality ones, the Missouri State Tax Commission went horribly wrong by ignoring many pertinent case ingredients provided in the pleadings, and ended up with a very bad soup.
The commission's brief list of "facts established by pleadings" is not correct. It lists items that are not facts and lacks many pertinent facts provided by the complainant in the pleadings.
1/ Is a fact. Platte County mailed a 20th March, 2007 notice and we received it.
2/ Is NOT a fact. Platte County "say", but it's not a fact that they mailed a 22nd March, 2007 notice. (The complainants did not receive the notice.)
3/ I complain that the commissioner's sentence is written in this manner. It generates additional written material and clouds the issue in favor of Platte County. It should not list anything related to March 20th. It is NOT A FACT that the March 20th notice was returned by the USPS to the assessor's office. This is simply because they didn't have a chance to as it was delivered. I demand the commission provide pinpoint accuracy and a full listing of worthwhile FACTS!
4/ Is a fact. We received the 20th notice but not the 22nd correction therefore not knowing of a correction until contacting Platte County when an outrageously overvalued tax bill arrived.
A more realistic list of the pertinent facts gathered from various pleadings:
FACT 1: Platte County mailed a notice on the 20th March, 2007.
FACT 2: Platte County mailed a Tax bill at the end of 2007 with an outrageously overvalued assessed value that didn't match the only notice the complainants received.
FACT 3: The assessment value challenging period expired in spring 2007, and also spring 2008.
FACT 4: Platte County only has a record that a correction notice was filed in their records on 22nd March, 2007, but no proof or solid details of it being mailed.
FACT 5: Platte County does not know what happened in administration, systems, extraction, and in mail processing/mailroom.
To expand on this: The Platte County record of the mailing is not accurate enough. There is no record of mailing batch. They indicate mixing of separate mailing batches by informing us it may have been sent in the first mailing's envelope that was generated 2 days before. Having experience of a professional mailroom and the guaranteed error rates associated with mailings, and the little I've heard regarding Platte County's procedures it sounds like they are begging for errors. It is a fact that an item running through a simple process stands a greater chance of success than one going through a more complex one. Platte County produced an error that forced a more complex process to try to generate a correct notice. This means that we were provided a much greater statistical chance of notice/mail process error than almost anyone else in Platte County, so this isn't as fair (regardless of if we had received the notice or not). It is also a fact that this would certainly be the place any good troubleshooter would look at first to discover the problem. At the same time, the complainants received other mail through their normal process, and the USPS delivered other mail through their normal process. Unfortunately, Platte County had a different process for the correction notice! The troubleshooter would look there first and spend a lot of time looking there before checking anything else. The troubleshooter would be back quickly to look at Platte County processes if there was nothing discovered elsewhere until the troubleshooter found the source of the problem.
FACT 6: Complainant did receive the 20th March, 2007 notice.
FACT 7: Complainant DID NOT receive the 22nd March, 2007 notice.
FACT 8: Complainant DID NOT receive the 22nd March, 2007 notice in the 20th's envelope.
FACT 9: The 22nd March, 2007's notice was not returned by the USPS to Platte County.
FACT 10: The USPS loses mail for various reasons known and unknown. The USPS document presented by the complainants in pleadings outlines the USPS lack of mailing accuracy and their desire to improve.
FACT 11: Platte County office administration said the corrected notice was sent the same day produced, possibly in the same envelope as the first notice.
FACT 12: Assessor Ms. Lisa Pope sworn statement regarding the process of the 22nd March, 2008 mailing contradicts what the Platte County office administration person said, by stating there were 2 notice mailings on different days.
FACT 13: Platte County says the 20th March, 2007 notice was sent in error.
FACT 14: A Complainant can not fix an unknown Platte County error.
FACT 15: The Platte County mailing of the notice to the complainant was fulfilled on 20th March 2007. If Platte County detected an error at that time (which is in question), the fact is the Burden of proof of mailing switches to the error generating party (Platte County in this case) in any error circumstances.
FACT 16: Platte County has no proof that the 22nd March, 2007 correction notice was mailed or made it through the USPS system.
FACT 17: Platte County's did not use any form of mail tracking procedure for this vitally important letter in which the burden of proof of mailing was on themselves.
FACT 18: We don't know the names of the people who processed the missing mail, the processes they used or the certificate of proof of mailing it.
FACT 19: Platte County has provided no information that it cares that an error occurred. They provided no details as to how the first notice error occurred. (how did the Parcel Number change?, how was it allowed? etc) They provided no details of any checks of their processes, systems, hardware or machinery in search of a bad process or the lost notice itself if it was printed.
FACT 20: Missouri State Tax Commission has shown no interest in the exact source of the problem and its remedy, but has preferred to give up troubleshooting and to punish the complainant. It is not interested in the audit trail for this document that is generating a grossly unfair and unexpected financial loss to the complainant.
FACT 21: There has been no apology from Platte County or Missouri State Tax Commission for any of the problems.
In Conflict and Inconclusive:
In the letter received from the Missouri State tax commission there was also a statement indicating information as being in conflict and inconclusive.
The Missouri State Tax Commission's labeling of the evidence as inconclusive and in conflict is wrong even in the manner the Missouri State Tax Commission incorrectly listed in this most recent May 7th, 2008 letter, never mind if all the facts the Missouri State Tax Commission chose not to list had been included. The words "in conflict" and "inconclusive" were used without any explanation from Missouri State Tax Commission as to what was in conflict or inconclusive. More evidence that Missouri State Tax Commission prefers to provide obscurity rather than clarity, with what seems to be a determined intent to deny fairness to the complainant. In addition, if there was conflicting and inconclusive information, anyone would expect the situation to resort to the status quo, reverting to the only item not inconclusive or in conflict, the delivered 20th March 2007 notice.
There is no conflict regarding the complainants receipt of tax notice. It is not inconclusive that we received it. We received a notice. That is what we planned, saved for and prepared to pay, and that is what we should and shall pay.
The only conflicts that make the matter inconclusive are within Platte County.
It is NOT A FACT that they sent the 22nd March, 2007 mailing, as it was not received by the complainants.
It is NOT A FACT the USPS received the 22nd March, 2007 mailing, as it was not received by the complainants and was not returned to Platte County by the USPS.
It is NOT A FACT that the notice was fully processed or that it left Platte County. The complainants didn't receive it, the USPS didn't return it to them, there is no certified proof of mailing or receipt, and the sworn testimony of the assessor regarding mail processing IS IN CONFLICT with the Platte County staff.
We reside in the Show-Me state. Show-Me the proof of mailing, USPS, UPS, Fed-EX, or even a Platte county procedure that certifies we physically received the correction notice. If this can't be shown to us, all the Platte County conflicts and inconclusive information leave only these facts: A notice was received by the complainant. Platte County did not ensure their error was corrected. It's too late to correct the error now. The only statement sent and received was the one sent on 20th March, 2007. We should be allowed to pay the initial notice amount if that is what we desire to pay.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM:
When the notice arrived at the correct address/parcel number, anyone would expect it to have the same/correct parcel number assigned to the address. The assessed tax figures also looked similar to the prior tax period.
For any real business, when a problem occurs with a process or product it is imperative to discover what went wrong. In the unusual and rare times when a business gives up looking or the cause can't be pinpointed, at the very least any real organization will find it essential to mark the most likely source of the problem.
I have no details of how and who at Platte County managed to corrupt our file record, and I have no idea of who or why someone was allowed to touch the file record for that matter. Is the corrupting of a valid file record a normal everyday occurrence at Platte County? If it is, Missouri State Tax Commission should be investigating the problem. I would hope it isn't an everyday occurrence, and that leads me to believe something very strange happened. Platte County corrupted the file record then said they corrected it. Their corrupt notice arrived in the mail and the corrected one did not. Is missing mail an everyday occurrence at Platte Co? If it is, then Missouri State Tax Commission should be investigating the problem. The procedure Platte County uses for corrected notices and mailings isn't used very much. This is a key point, as it's under these circumstances when errors are much more likely. Platte County corrupted our file record. Our information had then to be processed through a different than normal, little used path. The corrected notice didn't arrive at its intended destination, then Platte County and Missouri State Tax commission hold us totally responsible.
I find it strange that we are held responsible for problems relating to a sequence of events of a process that was initiated by Platte County corrupting our file information (which I find to be very strange in itself). I find it very difficult to fathom how or why the security of our file record was breached. How was it possible to access the record without both address and parcel number if we are in turn being held responsible for not checking both address and parcel number on the corrupt notice sent to us. This is another key point, because it means the term "mistake" really doesn't apply. Whether it's a computer system lacking secure validated access methods or simply lack of skills in its use. So there is either administrative systems problems or something else even more strange at Platte County that accessed and corrupted the file record initiating the string of problems.
How can Missouri State Tax commission allow a system that has a hole in it that allows for corruption? How can you allow a system that allows its data integrity to be very easily broken and its data security so easily breached? How can you allow this Platte County system, that provides anyone with access to it, the opportunity to create a financial problem for someone where they have no recourse? How can you allow a process that allows for things such as mistakes, deliberate record changing or even revenge to be a part of fully approved, unquestionable Missouri State Tax Commission policy? I know that an organization that provides a fair service should not allow a system design that grants the above. Your system provides for that ability. An avenue that can provide, for example, a kick to a customer if desired. How can you allow a system with this feature?
SUMMARY:
I feel tortured, and I do mean tortured. I feel that you know you are generating pain from someone that has done everything right, never mind nothing wrong. How can you have a system that makes a resident feel tortured for absolutely nothing, a piece of mail we didn't receive? Even if you can't figure out what was wrong, why would you punish on the complainant when they received their notice and in addition there is an error on Platte Countys plate?
If the complainants had been sent ONE (the first) notice that they didn't receive and they didn't contact Platte County for the information, the current situation would be fair. This is not what happened. We received our notice. The fact is that it's grossly unfair to punish a Platte County, Missouri resident for a notice that was NOT FACTUALLY sent, especially when they FACTUALLY received a notice fulfilling their taxpayer obligations to know the tax amount to save and prepare to pay.
By punishing us solely for not receiving a piece of mail, the commission is unjustly separating the mail delivery error from the Platte County administration problems. The Missouri State Tax Commission can't separate them. They are bound together. The attempted corrected notice mailing only occurred because of the Platte County administrative system problems. We will not be accountable for a single bound failed process that was initiated by Platte County administration problems which have by far the greatest reasons to be searched first for the source reason for the missing mail.
Missouri State Tax Commission neglected consideration of the important and pertinent facts of our case enabling a recommendation of rejection. Missouri State Tax Commission neglected consideration of the Platte County administration errors in the Platte County administration and mailing system as the most probable reason for the second notice delivery failure, enabling them a recommendation of rejection. Missouri State Tax Commission has neglected to study the problems in detail. Missouri State Tax Commission seems not interested in what went wrong, the faulty Platte County administration procedures and their lack of data and system integrity and security.
We have acted in clear and fair manner, but as Platte County and the Missouri State Tax Commission are not presenting clarity and fairness, and are imposing grossly unfair decisions regarding the problem, I demand the day to swear on oath to all the FACTS listed above. Anyone that makes a mistake has the choice to fix it properly or pay the price if it's not fixed properly. Platte County chose to gamble with the mailing of the correction of error letter. They lost their gamble, and unfortunately Platte County must pay the price for their administrative problem and inability to correct it properly. You must not punish the complainants any more for these Platte County errors. You must throw out Platte County's case and allow us to pay based on the 20th March 2007 notice. We have gone above and beyond with Platte County and the Missouri State Tax Commission to allow a fair resolution to the problems, indicating we do not want the County of Platte to go without a fair collection of tax on our property. Platte County has ignored our situation and the Missouri State Tax Commission has chosen to ignore pertinent facts, driving our case to being dismissed when all the facts show only Platte County in error.
Commissioners Bruce Davis, Jennifer Tidwell and Charles Nordwald. Senior Hearing Officer W.B. Tichenor. You have a choice to put your names alongside the term "fair".
You are currently trying to punish the complainant for:
1/ Receiving a tax notice and preparing for the good part of a year for its payment.
2/ Platte County administrative system problems with land parcel numbers.
3/ Platte County failure to certify and ensure a Platte County error was corrected.
It is easier for the Missouri State Tax Commission to ignore the problems in Missouri county offices and Platte County, and simply punish the tax payers, even if the results of ignoring problems is repetitive, highly inefficient and very costly and wasteful to Missouri. I will consider you "grossly unfair" if you continue to punish us for Platte County's administrative problems. I instead demand you put your names forward to fairness by:
1/ Denying the motion to dismiss.
2/ Throwing out the Platte County case.
3/ Ordering Platte County to only accept payment for the 20th March, 2007 notice.
4/ Requiring Platte County assessment value adjustment beyond its deadlines of all years since this problem because of the vast overvaluation.
Show-Me fairness at the Missouri State Tax Commission.
BostonTea
Rural, Missouri
U.S.A.
