The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
GP W. 3RD AVE., LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 110081D
)
v. )
)
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appeals the 2010-11 real market value of property identified as Accounts
1189396, 1189370 and 1189388 (subject property.) David E. Carmichael, Attorney at Law,
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Grace Chang (Chang), Vice President of Grand Pacific; Bill
Newland (Newland), real estate broker employed by Campbell Commercial Real Estate; and
John H. Brown (Brown), broker and appraiser, testified on behalf of Plaintiff. David Sohm
(Sohm), Registered Appraiser 3, Lane County Department of Assessment & Taxation, appeared
and testified on behalf of Defendant.
Plaintiff‟s Exhibit 1, Plaintiff‟s Rebuttal Exhibit 2, and Defendant‟s Exhibit A were
received without objection. Plaintiff‟s letter dated January 30, 2012, referenced Plaintiff‟s
Rebuttal Exhibit 1 but that exhibit was not included with Rebuttal Exhibit 2 and was not received
by the court.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject property is described by Sohm as follows:
“The industrial site [4.57 acres] is situated on the northeast corner of
Wallis Street and West 5th Avenue in Eugene, Oregon. * * *. The site is roughly
rectangular with +/- 444 feet of West 5th Avenue frontage and an average depth
of +/- 390 feet. There is a westerly extension from the northwest corner +/- 208.7
[feet] to Wallis Street with +/- 125 feet of frontage. The site area is 198,945
square feet or 4.57 acres. The site is improved with +/- 67,000 square feet of
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 1
asphalt paving, +/- 5,800 square feet of concrete paving, and +/- 315 lineal feet of
chain link fencing. All city utilities are provided to the subject I-2 zoned
property.
“The subject property is improved with an industrial building constructed
for high-tech manufacturing use. The building was constructed in 1978 and 1996
and was adapted in 2005 for water bottling use with extensive real property
machinery and equipment installed for that use. The concrete tilt-up structure
contains a total of 107,708 square feet, including 15,254 square feet of good
quality office space on two levels, representing 14% of the building area. The
building is average quality construction with 24 foot clear height in 74% of the
manufacturing/warehouse area and 16 feet in the westerly 26% of the space. The
building is fully fire sprinkled and has heavy electrical service for industrial use.
There are 11 grade level loading doors throughout the facility.
“The machinery and equipment included with the building was intended
for use by the prior owner for a water bottling operation. A list of the equipment
is taken from a June 28, 2007 equipment appraisal by Voorhees Associates and is
set forth in the addenda.
“The land to building ratio is 1.85. The site has paved parking and
maneuvering areas with landscaped areas support the industrial manufacturing
and office use of the property. There is +/- 1,300 lineal feet of chain link fencing.
The building provides good utility for industrial use and has a high percentage of
office space when compared to other industrial buildings.”
(Def‟s Ex A-2 to -3.; see Ptf‟s Ex 1-7 to -13.)
The witnesses testified about the ownership history of the subject property. Newland
testified that the subject property was purchased in June 2005 for approximately $2 million after
having been “shutdown and vacant for three to five years.” He testified that the property was
sold in July 2005 to Max Langenberg for “2 1/2 times the prior month‟s selling price.” Chang
testified that in October 2005, Grand Pacific Financing Corporation was the named
lender/beneficiary of a Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and
Fixture Filing filed by Cascade Title Company, listing Langenburg Research, Inc., and Stanford
Square Investors LLC as the borrower/grantor. (Ptf‟s Ex 1-72 to -75.) The loan between the
parties totaled $5,500,000. (Id.) Chang testified that in April 2008 the “account became
///
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 2
delinquent,” a “notice of default was recorded on July 30, 2008, and a “judicial foreclosure was
initiated on December 21, 2008.” (See also Ptf‟s Ex 1-71, -76 to -80.)
Chang testified that in October 2009 Colliers International prepared for Grand Pacific a
Broker Opinion of Value. (Id. at -87 to -96.) That report stated three opinions of value for the
subject property, labeled conservative, probable, and optimistic, that ranged from $2,900,000 to
$4,100,000. (Id. at -88.) Chang testified that Grubb & Ellis prepared a property evaluation
“without an interior inspection” dated November 17, 2009, concluding an “AS-IS” value of
$3,000,000 to $3,500,000. (Id. at -101.) In its report, the following was stated in the “Value
Conclusion:”
“The team [h]as been involved in the two most recent sales transactions of
this property. We first sold it for $2,100,000, to a company (contractor) that was
going to move into it – a HVAC (contractor), then to the current owner for over
$5,000,000. The property itself was originally listed for $22,000,000 in 2002, to
$6,200,000 in 2003. We were the third brokers listing the property for
approximately $5,000,000.”
(Id.) Newland testified that in 2005 the subject property sold for $2,100,000 after having “been
on the market for three years.” He testified that the sale to Max Langenberg, the individual
referenced as the current owner in the above quoted Value Conclusion, at a selling price of more
than $5,000,000, “defies valuation techniques.” In Newland‟s opinion, Langenberg “fell in love
with the building and had to have it” regardless of the “price.” Brown concurred with Newland‟s
opinion, testifying that the transaction price “didn‟t make any sense; it was not an arm‟s length
transaction because the principle of substitution and marketing time.”
Chang testified that a “sheriff‟s sale” was initiated in April 2010, and Time Equipment
Sales Inc. submitted an “estimated resale value of $725,000 for all machinery and equipment
sold within 270 days.” Chang testified that Time Equipment Sales, Inc., submitted three options:
Option A to purchase all equipment for $256,000; Option B to sell equipment on a “ „SHORT
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 3
TERM‟ individual „equipment‟ ” item basis for $475,000; and Option C to sell equipment on a
“ „LONG TERM individual „equipment‟ item basis for $725,000.” (Id. at -30 to -31.) Chang
testified that Grand Pacific did not enter into an agreement with Time Equipment Sales Inc. She
testified that Grand Pacific received an estimate from Great American Group for the “auction”
value of two equipment items: a “1996 Krones Contiform Blow Molder” and a “2001 Filler
Specialties Filler and Capper.” (Id. at -20.) Neither item was auctioned by Great American
Group. Chang testified that Grand Pacific entered into a 90 day “exclusive agreement” with Star
Industries to sell the machinery and equipment that it “valued at $1,310,000,” but none of the
machinery and equipment sold during the 90 days and the contract “terminated.” (Id. at -81 to
-86.)
Chang testified that in January 2011, Grand Pacific offered Campbell Commercial Real
Estate an exclusive listing. (See id. at -7.) The listing price was $4,800,000 including machinery
and equipment and was reduced to $3,500,000 excluding machinery and equipment. (Id. at -71.)
Plaintiff‟s requested real market value for subject property including machinery and equipment is
$3,500,000 on May 1, 2011. (Id. at -71.)
Chang testified that in July 2011, Grand Pacific contracted with Great American Group to
“auction off” the machinery and equipment. (Id.) She testified that the “auction contract” was
cancelled when Eagleflight offered $3,000,000 for the “real estate and equipments.” (Id.) Chang
testified that Grand Pacific‟s counteroffer of $3,100,000 was accepted by Eagleflight in late July
2011 and a “purchase contract” was “executed” in September 2011. (Id. at -48 to -62, -71.)
Chang testified that the “purchase contract” was modified on October 25, 2011. (Id. at -63 to
-68.) Newland testified that he was “deeply involved in the transaction” and that the potential
buyer modified the purchase contract because of “environmental concerns.” He testified that the
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 4
potential buyer canceled the contract because the “levels of contamination were not acceptable to
it.” Chang testified that the Eagleflight transaction “fell out of escrow” in January 2012.
Newland testified that he entered into conversations with Grand Pacific in April 2010 for
“marketing” the property as soon as “foreclosure was completed.” He testified that “if Grand
Pacific was able to find a user who could utilize the building with its current layout and design,”
then offering the property for $4,800,000 “seemed more than justified.” Newland testified that
the subject property was built in “the 1990s” for the manufacture of computer hard drives and
that the building‟s “layout is not usable by vast industrial users in our market.” He testified that
he “anticipated reducing the offering price significantly to attract more typical industrial users in
Eugene area” and the price was “reduced to $3,500,000 on May 20, 2011.” Newland testified
that given “the functional obsolescence of the subject property” and that the subject property “is
a distressed property with a contamination concern,” it is likely that if the property sells within
the next “six to 12 months” it would be between “$2,000,000 and $3,000,000.” Newland
testified that the court should give “fair amount of weight to the $3,100,000, the last sale price of
six years ago,” because it is a “pretty good indicator of an arm‟s length transaction.” Brown
testified that “it still would be a challenge to achieve $3,000,000” because the subject property
has “too many challenges because of its “limited utility,” “age,” “unusual design” and features,
including raised “false floor grates, limited ground floor height, and load bearing supports would
make it a challenge to renovate.” Brown testified that the subject property‟s listing sets the
“upper limit” for the subject property‟s real market value. Brown testified that his “opinion of
value” as of the assessment date is $3,000,000 to $3,700,000 including machinery and
equipment.
Brown, who stated that he was testifying as a “broker today” even though he is a licensed
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 5
appraiser, testified that he worked with the subject property owner‟s during their 2008-09
property tax appeal. Brown and Sohm agree that for the 2008-09 tax year the parties agreed that
the real market value of the machinery and equipment ($4,131,423) was “based on the orderly
liquidation value from the [Voorhees] appraisal with adjustments” as of June 28, 2007. (Def‟s
Ex A-18.) He testified that the “equipment was imported from Europe and did not meet U.S.
standards.” The parties discussed the definition of “orderly liquidation” and “auction value.”
Brown testified that in his opinion the value of the machinery and equipment has dropped “32 to
35 percent” and an orderly liquidation was would result in “30 cents on the dollar, or
$1,395,816,” and an auction would result in “22.5 cents on the dollar, or $1,046,862.” Sohm
testified that the subject property owner did not “file returns” and the last machinery and
equipment information the county received was the “Loeb and Voorhees appraisal.” In rebuttal,
Plaintiff submitted a copy of the Loeb Equipment & Appraisal Company Appraisal Report,
stating that it was prepared for the purpose of public auction and forced liquidation value as of
October 16, 2008. (Ptf‟s Rebuttal Ex 2.) The parties discussed the report‟s stated public auction
value of $975,600. (Id. at -5.) Sohm questioned whether all the assets stated in either the Loeb
or Voorhees reports were on the subject property as of January 1, 2010.
Sohm testified that his appraisal report “done for January 1, 2010,” concludes that the
subject property including machinery and equipment had an indicated real market value of
$8,373,000. (Def‟s Ex A-1.) He testified that the highest and best use of the subject property is
“a large owner occupant type of industrial manufacturing building at January 1, 2010.” (Id. at
-3.)
Sohm testified that he briefly described five “industrial sales” he identified as comparable
to the subject property. (Id. at -11.) He testified that those sales closed between January 2008
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 6
and September 2010, but there were not enough sales to make “quantitative adjustments” and he
relied on “qualitative adjustments.” (See Id.) Sohm testified that he placed “the most reliance”
on two sales: comparable sale 3, a “concrete tilt-up building” located across the street from the
subject property that sold in March 2010, for $45.37 per square foot and comparable sale 5, a
“metal industrial building with 20 foot wall height constructed for a trailer manufacturing
company in 1985” that sold in March 2010, for $45.40 per square foot. (Id. at 11, 12.) Sohm
testified that “[o]verall, a price per square foot of $45 is selected for use in this analysis.
Applying $45 per square foot to the 107,708 square feet in the subject building results in a value
indication of $4,846,860, rounded to $4,847,000.” (Id. at -12.)
In response to questions, Sohm testified that he did not inspect the subject property and
that he made interior inspections of all comparable properties except comparable 5. Sohm
testified that he made no time adjustments even though three of the sales were after the
assessment date and one sale was 20 months prior to the assessment date. He explained that any
“downward” time adjustment for the sale closing 20 months prior to the assessment date would
be “offset by the nature of the building and lack of office space.” Sohm was questioned about
the size of the two comparables he determined were most like the subject property even though
those buildings were less than one-half the size of the subject property. Brown testified that in
selecting comparable properties to the subject property he looks for “sales that are comparable
accurate indicators of value” and the subject property is a “challenging property.” Brown
testified that he would have “put more weight on the Pepsi bottling property” because it was a
“better size comparison” and “sale was close in date” to the assessment date. He testified that he
did not know how Sohm could determine which comparable properties were superior or inferior
to the subject property when Sohm testified that he had not made an interior inspection of the
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 7
subject property. Brown testified that the subject property has “functional obsolescence” and an
adjustment should have been made. Newland testified that Sohm‟s comparable sales are not
comparable to the subject property because “there are no comps out there; the subject property is
a “complete anomaly” that is “functionally obsolete and not applicable to industrial market and a
lot of office space.”
Sohm testified that in considering the income approach he concluded that it was “difficult
to find good lease comparables.” In his report, Sohm wrote:
“The subject property is a 94,050 square foot owner occupied industrial
building with warehouse and office space, including 14.5% finished office. There
is no income history from leasing of the subject property. Comparable large
industrial properties are typically owner occupied and seldom leased on an
[arm‟s-]length basis.”
(Id. at -13.) Sohm selected five lease comparables, ranging in “rent per square foot” from 24
cents to 45 cents, triple net. (Id.) Sohm concluded that “[a]fter considering the available lease
data in the subject‟s market area, it is estimated that the appropriate lease rate on a triple net
basis is $0.34 per square foot. This indicates monthly rent of $36,621 and annual potential gross
income of $439,452.” (Id. at -14.) Brown testified that the lease rents selected by Sohm do not
consider the functional obsolescence of the subject property and he was aware of a “large
facility” that recently leased for 21 cents per square foot.
Sohm testified that a “vacancy factor of 10% of gross income is projected as a vacancy
allowance for the subject property in recognition of the size and current market conditions.” (Id.
at -16) He determined that
“[t]he operating expenses for the subject property under a typical triple net lease
would involve management and reserves for replacement. An allocation of 3% of
effective gross income is judged to be appropriate for management, resulting in an
expense of $11,865 per year. An allocation of 2% is appropriate to reserves for
replacement of short lived items in this building, amounting to $7,910 per year.
Total expenses are estimated to be $19,775, on a triple net basis.”
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 8
(Def‟s Ex A-16.) Sohm testified that the “projected net operating income before property taxes
for the subject property is $375,732.” (Id.)
Sohm referenced his five comparable sales and noted that the overall capitalization rates
“rang[ed] from 5.48% to 9.29%.” He testified that the “wide range is due to the inconsistency
between current rental rates and sales prices for owner occupied large properties” and explained
that conclusion by referencing comparable sales 3 and 5. (Id. at -16 to -17.) Sohm testified that
he concluded an overall capitalization rate of eight percent. (Id. at 17.) Brown testified that
Sohm‟s capitalization rate does not reflect the “risks associated with a single tenant” and the
“prolonged exposure of the subject property to the market.”
Sohm testified that “[a]pplying the overall capitalization rate to the net income” results in
an “indicated market value” of $4,697,000. (Id.)
In response to questions, Sohm testified that he did not inspect any of those properties
except comparable 5. Sohm testified that none of the lease comparables are “ideal,” but “none
exists.” He testified that “any large building lease is helpful,” but he would have preferred to use
“leases within date of value, if he had them.” Brown testified that some of Sohm‟s leases “are
old, dating back to late 2006.” Brown testified that some of the properties Sohm selected as
comparable to the subject property are “vastly superior to the subject property.” Brown testified
that in his opinion a “34 cent triple net lease rate is not achievable then or now.” Newland
testified that “maybe a portion” of the subject property‟s building could rent for 34 cents per
square foot.
Sohm testified the “value indicated by the income approach supports the sales
comparison analysis and is considered reasonable.” (Id.) He testified that because “[o]ne of the
sales is particularly comparable to the subject in terms of effective age, quality, and office
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 9
percentage,” the “sales comparison approach is given considerable credence in the final
analysis.” (Id.) Sohm testified that he concluded “a real market value as of January 1, 2010 of
$4,800,000.” (Id.)
Sohm testified that he is not a machinery and equipment appraiser and he relied on “a
prior Magistrate settlement for the 2008 year” concluding “the value of the machinery and
equipment” to be “$4,131,423 based on the orderly liquidation value from the [Voorhees]
appraisal with adjustments.” (Id. at -18.) He explained that he applied “the depreciation and
trend schedule from the Department of Revenue of .93 for 2009[] and 0.93 for 2010” to the
2008-09 real market value to determine “a value for January 1, 2010” of $3,573,000 (rounded).
(Id.) Sohm explained that the Loeb Equipment and Appraisal Company appraisal “was not
deemed to be reliable” when determining the 2008-09 machinery and equipment value because
“the equipment remains in the building and could be sold in an orderly liquidation” rather than
the “forced liquidation” that was the basis of the Loeb appraisal. (Id.)
Sohm testified that the “total property value for assessment purposes [is] the combination
of the value of the real estate (land and structures) plus the contributory value of the real property
machinery and equipment. * * *. The total value of the real property is estimated to be
$8,373,000.” (Id.) In response to questions, Sohm testified that “the county is looking at real
market value” that reflects “stabilized occupancy,” “not fire sale” or “bank owned foreclosure
sale prices.”
II. ANALYSIS
The issue before the court is the 2010-11 real market value of Plaintiff‟s property. Real
market value is the standard used throughout the ad valorem statutes except for special
assessments. Richardson v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD No 020869D, WL 21263620,
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 10
at *2 (Mar 26, 2003) (citing Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 343, 345 (1995)). Real market
value is defined in ORS 308.205(1),1 which reads:
“Real market value of all property, real and personal, means the amount in cash
that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller,
each acting without compulsion in an arm‟s-length transaction occurring as of the
assessment date for the tax year.”
There are three approaches to valuation (cost, income, and comparable sales) that must be
considered in determining the real market value of a property even if one of the approaches is
found to not be applicable. OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2); see ORS 308.205(2). Plaintiff did not
submit an appraisal using any of the three valuation approaches. Defendant submitted an
appraisal report, using both the comparable sales approach and income approach to determine the
subject property‟s real market value.
As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the
subject property‟s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427. Plaintiff must
establish its claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight
of evidence.” Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530 at 4, WL 914208 (July 12, 2001) (citing
Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (1971)).
Plaintiff must present the greater weight of evidence to support its requested real market
value reduction. This court has stated that “it is not enough for a taxpayer to criticize a county‟s
position. Taxpayers must provide competent evidence of the [real market value] of their
property.” Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 324, 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16
OTR 56, 59 (2002). Competent evidence includes appraisal reports and sales adjusted for time,
location, size, quality, and other distinguishing differences, and testimony from licensed
professionals such as appraisers, real estate agents and licensed brokers.
1
References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to year 2009.
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 11
Plaintiff failed to use any of the three common approaches prescribed by statute to
determine the subject property‟s real market value. Plaintiff relied solely on the testimony of
two experienced brokers. Newland listed the subject property for sale in January 2011, 12
months after the assessment date, for a listing price of $4,800,000 including machinery and
equipment. Newland testified that because the listing price was reduced in May 2011 to
$3,500,000 excluding machinery and equipment he now concludes that the subject property‟s
real market value is “between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000.” (Ptf‟s Ex 1-71.) Brown testified that
his “opinion of value” as of the assessment date is $3,000,000 to $3,700,000 including
machinery and equipment.” The brokers offered the court a range of real market value ($2,000,
000 to $4,800,000) for the subject property‟s real market value including machinery and
equipment without reconciliation.
Even though Plaintiff‟s broker witnesses are experienced, the court was not provided
with any specific data supporting their range of real market values. The court must determine
the subject property‟s real market value as directed in ORS 308.205(1), looking at arm‟s length
transactions. The court does not know if each individual relied on specific market data based on
arm‟s length transactions between a willing buyer and willing seller, or if each broker‟s
suggested real market value was a value based on a foreclosure or “fire” sale.
Plaintiff submitted two broker‟s opinions of value for the subject property, dated October
2009 and November 2009. (Ptf‟s Ex 1-87 to -102.) Those reports concluded a range of value
from $2,900,000 to $4,100,000. (Id. at -88.) The authors of those reports did not testify. One
report stated the “[p]roperty has NOT been inspected inside” and “[i]t is our best estimate that
the above pricing would expedite a sale.” (Id. at 101.) Without testimony from those who
///
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 12
prepared the reports, the court finds that information unpersuasive in determining the subject
property‟s real market value.
Plaintiff submitted no evidence of the subject property‟s machinery and equipment real
market value as of the assessment date. Defendant submitted a copy of an appraisal report dated
June 28, 2007, for the machinery and equipment. (Def‟s Ex A-20 to -69.) According to the
report at that date, two and one half years prior to the assessment date, the values ranged from
$8.5 Million to $3.3 Million (rounded). Sohm testified that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to a
value of $4,131,423 as of January 1, 2008. Plaintiff did not submit a list of machinery and
equipment owned by it as of the assessment date. Plaintiff‟s two brokers testified that their
estimates of real market value included the machinery and equipment without stating how much
of the real market value, if any, should be allocated to the machinery and equipment. One of the
brokers‟ opinions of value stated that “no value is given to this equipment.” (Ptf‟s Ex 1-88.)
Plaintiff submitted no evidence of the machinery and equipment‟s real market value as of the
date of assessment for the court to consider.
Plaintiff‟s evidence in support of its requested real market value reduction is
inconclusive. When the “evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed
to meet his burden of proof ***.” Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265, 798 P2d 235 (1990).
Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.
Even though the burden has not shifted, “the court has jurisdiction to determine the real
market value or correct valuation on the basis of the evidence before the court.” ORS 305.412.
Sohm prepared an appraisal report using both the comparable sales approach and income
approach. The appraisal experts agree that there are few, if any, comparable properties in the
Eugene area that have sold. Using the comparable sales approach, Sohm determined a “price per
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 13
square foot of $45” based on “qualitative comparisons.” (Def‟s Ex A-12.) That value ($45 per
square foot) is at the high end of the comparable sales range for buildings with substantially less
available square footage than the subject property. (Id. at -11.) Sohm stated that his report was
based on “qualitative comparisons,” even though he testified that he did not inspect the subject
property. The court does not know how Sohm made well reasoned qualitative comparisons
when he never inspected the subject property. Given the challenging characteristics of the
subject property and the evidence, the court concludes that a more reasonable price per square
foot is $35 and determines an indicated real market value of $3,700,000 (rounded).
Using the income approach, Sohm determined an indicated real market value of
$4,697,000. (Id. at -17.) Sohm determined the subject property‟s gross revenue using 34 cents
per square foot, stating the subject property has “no income history from leasing” because it was
owner-occupied. (Id. at -13.) Sohm did not include the dates the tenants entered the leases and
most of the leases were for substantially smaller facilities than the subject property. Even though
the capitalization rates ranged from 5.48 percent to 9.29 percent with three of the five sale
comparables showing rates of nine percent, Sohm selected an eight percent capitalization rate
with no adjustment for property taxes. (Id. at -11, -16 to -17.) Based on the stated concerns, the
court places little weight on Sohm‟s indicated real market value using the income approach.
After placing the most weight on the comparable sales approach because the subject
property has no leasing history and the capitalization rate did not include a property tax rate, the
court reconciles the two approaches to determine a real market value of $3,700,000.
Sohm determined the subject property‟s machinery and equipment real market value
starting with the 2008-09 tax year and applying the Oregon Department of Revenue
“depreciation and trend schedule.” (Id. at -18.) Sohm admitted that he is not a machinery and
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 14
equipment appraiser and because Plaintiff failed to file property tax returns he, like the court,
does not know what items of machinery and equipment were present on the assessment date.
Because Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence separating the real market value of the building
from the machinery and equipment, the court accepts Defendant‟s determination that the subject
property‟s machinery and equipment real market value is $3,573,000 as of January 1, 2010.
III. CONCLUSION
After careful review of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes the Plaintiff
failed to carry its burden of proof. After careful consideration of Defendant‟s appraisal report,
the court concludes that the subject property‟s 2010-11 real market value is $7,273,000. Now,
therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the real market value of property
identified as Accounts 1189396, 1189370 and 1189388 as of January 1, 2010, is $7,237,000.
Dated this day of April 2012.
JILL A. TANNER
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.
This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on April 2,
2012. The Court filed and entered this document on April 2, 2012.
DECISION TC-MD 110081D 15