The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
RONALD L. ELLIOTT )
and SUZANNE K. ELLIOTT, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 111170N
)
v. )
)
CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (motion), filed with its
Answer on December 8, 2011, requesting that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed because “there
was no timely appeal made to the Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA) for the 2010/11 tax
year. The complaint does not provide any information that would satisfy the conditions required
for correction under ORS 305.288.” (Def’s Ans at 1.) A case management conference was held
on January 31, 2012, during which the parties discussed Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff Ronald L.
Elliott (Elliott) appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and agreed that Plaintiffs would file a written
response to Defendant’s motion by March 1, 2012.
Plaintiffs appeal the real market value of property identified as Account 05001301
(subject property) for the 2010-11 tax year. During conference on January 31, 2012, Elliott
stated that an outbuilding was added during 2009 and finished in 2010. Elliott stated that
Plaintiffs disagree with the increase in assessed value as a result of the addition of the
outbuilding, noting that the value added was 110 percent of the cost whereas the typical value
added for outbuildings is only about 50 percent of the cost. Plaintiffs request a reduction in the
2010-11 real market value to $460,000 based on a recent appraisal. (See Ptfs’ Compl at 1.) The
2010-11 roll real market value of the subject property was $513,220.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 111170N 1
Defendant requests that Plaintiffs’ appeal be dismissed because Plaintiffs did not timely
appeal to BOPTA and Plaintiffs have not established that their appeal is allowed under
ORS 305.288. Elliott stated at the January 31, 2012, conference that Plaintiffs spoke with
someone at Defendant’s office prior to appealing and were told that an appeal to this court was
their only recourse; Elliott stated that Plaintiffs were not told to review the court’s handbook. As
of the date of this Decision, the court has received no further communication from Plaintiffs.
The Oregon legislature has enacted laws that guide taxpayers challenging the real market
value assigned to their properties. The first step in the appeal process is to file a petition with the
county BOPTA. ORS 309.100.1 After a BOPTA order is issued, a taxpayer has 30 days to
appeal to this court under ORS 305.280(4). In limited circumstances, this court will consider an
appeal of real market value even if the taxpayer failed to file an appeal with BOPTA or failed to
timely appeal a BOPTA order to this court. ORS 305.288 provides, in pertinent part:
“(1) The tax court shall order a change * * * applicable to a separate assessment
of property to the assessment and tax roll for the current tax year or for either of
the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year, or for any of those
tax years, if all of the following conditions exist:
“(a) For the tax year to which the change * * * is applicable, the property
was or is used primarily as a dwelling * * *.
“(b) The change or correction requested is a change in value for the
property for the tax year and it is asserted in the request and determined by
the tax court that the difference between the real market value of the
property for the tax year and the real market value on the assessment and
tax roll for the tax year is equal to or greater than 20 percent.
“* * * * *
“(3) The tax court may order a change or correction applicable to a separate
assessment of property to the assessment or tax roll for the current tax year and
for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year if, for
the year to which the change or correction is applicable, the assessor or taxpayer
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2009.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 111170N 2
has no statutory right of appeal remaining and the tax court determines that good
and sufficient cause exists for the failure by the assessor or taxpayer to pursue the
statutory right of appeal.”
(Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs did not timely appeal the 2010-11 real market value of the
subject property to BOPTA. Plaintiffs’ requested real market value, $460,000, does not allege an
error of at least 20 percent in the 2010-11 tax roll. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not provided
“good and sufficient cause” for their failure to timely appeal. Thus, Plaintiffs’ appeal does not
meet the requirements of ORS 305.288 and the court is without authority to consider Plaintiffs’
appeal. Under such circumstances, the court finds that Defendant’s motion must be granted.
Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.
Dated this day of March 2012.
ALLISON R. BOOMER
MAGISTRATE PRO TEMPORE
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 Magistrate Pro Tempore Allison R. Boomer on
March 15, 2012. The Court filed and entered this document on March 15, 2012.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 111170N 3