The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
GORDON E. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 110291D
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s appeal of property identified as Account
R294557 (subject property) for the tax year 2010-2011. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf in
person. Dave Babcock (Babcock), appraiser, appeared on behalf of Defendant by telephone.
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff wrote to the court stating that he would appear in person
for the trial scheduled for December 12, 2011, and was “submitting 4 pages * * * of information
and analysis which provides support that the 2010 Multnomah County RMV of $301,220 is
inaccurate and over-stated.” Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s “4 pages,” stating that Plaintiff
failed to follow the Oregon Tax Court, Magistrate Division Rule 10, exhibit exchange rules.
After discussing the rule, the court granted Defendant’s motion to deny Plaintiff’s request to
submit the “4 pages.”
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff testified that he is a commercial real estate lender, has a master’s degree in real
estate development, and has taken many courses in commercial appraisal. He testified that the
“four sample” sales of comparable properties that sold between April and June, 2010 are more
comparable to the subject property than the three properties identified as comparable by
Defendant. Plaintiff testified that the subject property “valued by the county at $153 per square
DECISION TC-MD 110291D 1
foot” is “statistically out of tolerance variance” with the “value per square foot of $126” that he
determined using the four properties he identified as comparable to the subject property.
Plaintiff testified that he purchased the property, which was built in 1951, in 2001. He
testified that his “property taxes” have increased” more than 45 percent over the “nine years” he
has owned the property. Plaintiff testified that is a “five percent annual increase” that is not “in
the spirit” of the “three percent” statutory limitation.
Plaintiff asked Babcock if he had copies of information Plaintiff submitted for the board
of county property tax appeals. Babcock responded that he had some of the information Plaintiff
submitted for the county hearing including an appraisal report dated December, 2009, stating a
real market value of $321,000 for the subject property. At this point, Plaintiff rested his case.
The court asked Plaintiff if he knew the statutory requirements for determining the
subject property’s real market value. The court briefly reviewed the three different methods used
to determine real market value: 1) the cost approach, 2) income approach, and 3) sales
comparison or market approach. Allen v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 248, 252 (2003). When
determining the real market value of a property, the three different approaches to valuation must
all be considered, even if one of the approaches is found to be unreliable. See ORS 308.205(2);
OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2).1 The court stated that given the age of the property (according to
Plaintiff the subject property was built in 1951) and the fact that the subject property is Plaintiff’s
residence and not an income producing property, the income and cost approaches are probably
not applicable.
A comparable sales approach “may be used to value improved properties, vacant land, or
land being considered as though vacant.” Chambers Management Corp v. Lane County Assessor,
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) are to the statutes
and rules in effect in 2009.
DECISION TC-MD 110291D 2
TC-MD No 060354D at 6 (Apr 3, 2007) (citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 335
(12th ed 2001)). ORS 308.205(2) provides in pertinent part that “[r]eal market value in all cases
shall be determined by methods and procedures in accordance with rules adopted by the Department
of Revenue.” The Department of Revenue adopted OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(c), which states in part:
“In utilizing the sales comparison approach only actual market transactions of property
comparable to the subject, or adjusted to be comparable, will be used. All transactions
utilized in the sales comparison approach must be verified to ensure they reflect arms
length market transactions.”
Plaintiff did not present evidence showing that he adjusted the “four sample sales” to be
comparable to the subject property or verified each sale to confirm that it was an arm’s length
market transaction.
The court explained that 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 his 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 (July 12,
2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (1971)).
Plaintiff must present the greater weight of evidence to support his 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) (citation omitted). 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.
Plaintiff failed to use any of the three common approaches prescribed by statute to
determine the real market value the subject property. Plaintiff did not submit an appraisal report
DECISION TC-MD 110291D 3
or comparable sales approach. Plaintiff’s evidence in support of his 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.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to support his requested real market
value, the court cannot make a determination of the subject property’s real market value. Now,
therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
Dated this day of January 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
January 10, 2012. The Court filed and entered this document on January 10,
2012.
DECISION TC-MD 110291D 4