Modifies provisions relating to property taxes
SB 599 revises Missouri property tax appeal and protest procedures. It creates a new section defining “common level of assessment” and “individual level of assessment” and requires real property in certain subclasses to be assessed uniformly and equally. If a parcel’s individual assessment level is higher than the subclass’s common level, the owner may seek a reduction on appeal to the local board of equalization, the State Tax Commission, or circuit court. The bill also establishes a presumption that the lower of the assessor’s appraised value or the board of equalization’s value is the true value unless substantial evidence shows otherwise.
The bill changes the burden of proof in certain assessment appeals. In specified counties and cities, and for other properties with assessment increases of at least 15 percent absent new construction or improvements, the assessor must prove the valuation does not exceed true market value. It also requires the assessor to prove compliance with physical inspection requirements, and if that proof is lacking, the taxpayer prevails and the increased assessment is void. In appeals from certain jurisdictions, the assessor is limited in advocating for a value higher than the final assessor or board value for that assessment period.
SB 599 expands attorney fee and litigation cost recovery in successful property tax appeals. In first class charter counties and cities not within a county, taxpayers would be entitled to attorney’s fees, appraisal costs, witness fees, and court costs if an appeal reduces residential property value by at least 15 percent or subclass three property by at least 25 percent, subject to caps increased to $5,000 for residential appeals and the lesser of $5,000 or 25 percent of tax savings for subclass three appeals. The bill also revises tax protest procedures under section 139.031, requiring full payment of the current tax bill before delinquency, updating protest filing requirements, and clarifying how disputed taxes are impounded, invested, refunded, or disbursed while appeals are pending.
The bill’s impact would be significant for county assessors, boards of equalization, collectors, taxing authorities, and property owners challenging assessments. It would strengthen taxpayer procedural rights, shift evidentiary burdens in some high-growth or high-population jurisdictions, and increase the likelihood of fee recovery in successful appeals. It also modifies how protested taxes are handled, including interest treatment, temporary distribution to taxing authorities, and refund timing, while waiving sovereign or official immunity for disputes tied to the new disbursement provisions.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears taxpayer-friendly and aimed at making assessment appeals easier and more financially viable, while likely drawing concern from assessors and local taxing authorities because it increases their litigation burden, narrows their discretion, and may reduce or delay property tax revenue collections.
SB 599 would amend Missouri’s property tax statutes by repealing and replacing sections 138.060, 138.434, and 139.031 and adding new section 137.132. It would alter assessment appeal standards, shift burdens of proof in certain jurisdictions and high-increase cases, expand fee awards for successful appeals, and revise the procedures for paying taxes under protest, impounding disputed funds, distributing those funds to taxing authorities, and issuing refunds with interest. The bill would directly affect property owners, assessors, county collectors, boards of equalization, the State Tax Commission, and local taxing entities.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. From the bill’s contents, the measure is structured to favor taxpayers challenging property assessments and to increase accountability for assessors, suggesting likely support from property owners and tax appeal advocates. At the same time, it would likely face resistance from assessors, collectors, and local governments concerned about administrative burden, litigation exposure, and reduced revenue certainty.
The main points of contention are likely the shifted burden of proof, the presumption favoring lower valuations, and the requirement that assessors prove compliance with physical inspection rules in certain cases. Local governments and assessors may object to the expanded attorney-fee awards, the higher fee caps, and the possibility that increased assessments can be voided if the assessor cannot document the inspection process. Another likely dispute is the revised protest-and-refund framework, especially the impoundment and temporary release of disputed tax funds, the interest obligations on refunded amounts, and the waiver of sovereign or official immunity for disputes over those funds.