The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
BAKER CABIN HISTORIC SOCIETY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 110929D
)
v. )
)
CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appeals Defendant‟s denial of its property tax exemption application for the
2010-11 tax year. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. There is no factual
dispute. This matter is now ready for decision.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff is a nonprofit organization, operating on “a three acre [] historic site in
Clackamas County near Oregon City where artifacts and several historic buildings are
maintained by volunteers for the use of the public for enjoyment and education.” (Ptf‟s Stip Fact
at 1, 2.) The parties agree that in March, 2000, Plaintiff “filed an application with the
[Defendant] claiming entitlement to a property tax exemption pursuant to Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) 307.115.” (Def‟s Stip Facts at 2; Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 22(b).) The parties agree that
Plaintiff was “notified by letter dated July 12, 2000 that the [property tax] exemption had been
approved by the Board of County Commissioners beginning with the 2000-2001 tax year, and
that the exemption would expire on June 30, 2010.” (Def‟s Stip Facts at 3; see Ptf‟s Stip Facts at
8, 10, Attach 1.) The following information appeared in that letter:
“Application for renewal of tax exemption may be made no later than April 1
during the year following the last year of exemption (April 1, 2010), to be
reviewed by the Board of Commissioners.”
///
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 1
(Id.) The parties agree that Plaintiff did not file an application for renewal by April 1, 2010, for
the 2010-11 tax year. (See Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 10; Def‟s Stip Facts at 11.)
Plaintiff alleges three arguments in support of its request that the subject property be
granted property tax exemption. First, Plaintiff alleges that because its exemption expired in
2010, stating:
“[T]he ORS [307.115(4)(e)] filing deadline of „April 1 of the year following the
10th year of exemption‟ would extend the deadline to April 1, 2011. The
[Plaintiff] filed [its] application on 2-26-2011 before the April 1, 2011 deadline.
“However, the above is contradictory to deadlines found in „Claiming
Exemptions‟ ORS 307.162-(1) which states „the institution or organization
entitled to claim the exemption must file a claim with the county assessor, on or
before April 1 preceding the tax year for which the exemption is claimed. This
deadline is confusing as it is a full year prior to the other deadline.”
(Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 10.) (Emphasis in original.) Defendant responded, stating that because
Plaintiff failed to file its “application for 2010-2011 * * * on or before December 31, 2010 or
within 60 days of the tax notice, as required by ORS 307.162(2), * * * [u]nder Oregon law, a
property tax exemption cannot be granted if a required application is not filed.”1 (Def‟s Stip
Facts at 11, 13.)
Second, Plaintiff alleges that because it never received “a Tax Statement” that Defendant
states “was mailed in November 2010[;] „Due Process‟ requires that tax payers be notified in
advance of charges being levied, and the [Plaintiff] found itself surprised and prejudiced by this
tax assessment” that arrived in February 2011. (Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 15, 22.) In response,
Defendant states that “[i]n accordance with Oregon law, a property tax statement for 2010-2011
was mailed by October 25, 2010, and it was not returned by the United States Postal Service as
undeliverable mail.” (Def‟s Stip Facts at 7 and Olsen Dec at 1; see Ptf‟s Ex 6.) Defendant
1
The court notes that Defendant incorrectly quoted from the 2011 edition of the Oregon Revised Statutes.
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 2
continues, stating that “[t]hough the [Plaitniff‟s] bookkeeper states the statement was not
received * * *, the statement is not invalidated under ORS law under ORS 311.205(2).
[Plaintiff‟s] Exhibit 6 also appears to contradict non-receipt.” (Def‟s Stip Facts at 8.)
Third, Plaintiff alleges that:
“Given that in the last 10 year period of exemption, it appears that the
[Defendant] and State have contradictions in law, and have made significant
changes to both their process of notification, and possibly to the deadlines of
applications. The [Plaintiff] argues that these facts allow the Court the authority
to grant extensions of time by re-defining the [Plaintiff] as a hybrid „First Time
Filer‟ and apply section 307.162.2.(B) * * *. The [Plaintiff] does not satisfy
section (A) [of ORS 307.162.2(A)] but does satisfy section (B)” and “we assert
that the lack of notification should be reasonably considered „good and sufficient
cause‟ by the argument that „no notice‟ constitutes misleading information.”
(Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 23.) Defendant responded, stating that “[t]he [Plaintiff] is not a first-time filer
or public entity under ORS 307.162” and “plaintiff does not qualify for a good cause exception
under ORS 307.162(2), and cannot file late under ORS 307.162(2)(b)(A).” (Def‟s Cross Mot
and Memo for Summ J at 2-3, Stip Facts at 11.)
II. ANALYSIS
The parties agree that Plaintiff, a non-profit organization that operates real property
“actually and exclusively occupied or used for public park or public recreation purposes,”
applied for and was granted a property tax exemption for a ten year period, beginning July 2000
and ending June 30, 2009. See ORS 307.115(1)(a), (e) (1999). ORS 307.115(4)(e)2 states in
pertinent part that an exemption “may be renewed by the granting authority for additional
periods of 10 years each at the expiration of the preceding period, upon the filing of a new
application by the corporation with the county assessor on or before April 1 of the year following
the 10th year of exemption.” The tenth year of Plaintiff‟s exemption was 2009-10. The year
2
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2009 year unless otherwise stated.
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 3
following the 10th year of exemption was 2010. Plaintiff‟s application was due no later than
April 1, 2010. Plaintiff was advised of the date to file its renewal application at the time it was
granted the property tax exemption in 2000. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to file its renewal
application until February 2011.
Having failed to file a timely renewal application, Plaintiff seeks relief, looking to
ORS 307.162. Plaintiff alleges that the deadline in ORS 307.115(4) “is contradictory to
deadlines found in „Claiming Exemptions‟ ORS 307.162-(1)[.]” (Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 10.) Both
statutes require that a property tax exemption application be filed “on or before April 1 preceding
the tax year for which the exemption is claimed.” ORS 307.162(1)(a). “Tax year” is defined as
“a period of 12 months beginning on July 1.” ORS 308.007(c). In the case before the court,
Plaintiff‟s renewal application was due no later than April 1, 2010, a date “preceding the tax
year,” a twelve month period beginning July 1, 2010, and ending June 20, 2011, for which
Plaintiff was seeking to renew its property tax exemption for another ten years. After reading the
statute, Plaintiff mistakenly concluded that the deadline was April 1, 2011. April 1, 2011, is the
deadline for the 2011-12 tax year. When Plaintiff filed its application in February, 2011, it had
missed the application deadline by more than ten months.
Plaintiff alleges that its untimely application should be accepted because it did not
receive “notice” that the subject property was no longer exempt. This court recently concluded
that “the assessor is permitted to alter position as to exemption * * * without notice to the
property owner prior to the issuance of the tax statement. Then, of course, the statutes provide
ways for the adversely affected owner to challenge the decision of the assessor. * * *
ORS 305.275.” Multnomah County Assessor v. Portland Development Comm’n, TC No 5008,
WL 5925128 at *2 (Nov 29, 2011). A property tax statement is sufficient notice.
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 4
ORS 311.250(1) states in pertinent part that “the tax collector shall deliver or mail to each
person (as defined in ORS 311.605) shown on the tax roll as an owner of real or personal
property * * * a written statement of property taxes payable on the following November.”
Plaintiff alleges that it did not receive a 2010-11 property tax statement but did receive the
reminder notice. (Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 18, 22(j).) Defendant attached a copy of the 2010-11 real
property tax statement to its Cross Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment, stating
that the tax statement and the subsequent 2010-11 Clackamas County Property Tax Reminder
were sent to the same address and neither of those documents was returned to Defendant as
“undeliverable mail.” (Def‟s Stip Facts at 7; Olsen Dec, Ex 1, 2.) ORS 311.250(2) clearly states
that a taxpayer‟s failure to receive the statement “shall not invalidate any assessment, levy, tax,
or proceeding to collect tax.” Even if Plaintiff failed to receive the property tax statement, the
assessment is not invalidated.
Plaintiff admits that its renewal application was not filed timely but requests that the
court conclude it had “good and sufficient” cause or in the alternative meets one of the two
statutory requirements of a “First Time Filer” under ORS 307.162(2)(a)(B). ORS 307.162(2)
states in pertinent part:
“(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a claim may be filed under
this section:
“* * *.
“(B) On or before April 1 of the tax year for which the exemption is claimed, if
the claim is accompanied by a late filing fee of $200 and the claimant
demonstrates good and sufficient cause for failing to file a timely claim, is a first-
time filer or is a public entity described in ORS 307.090.
“(b) If the claim is not accompanied by the late filing fee or if the late filing fee is
not otherwise paid, an exemption may not be allowed for the tax year sought by
the claim filed pursuant to this subsection. * * *.”
///
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 5
Plaintiff fails to meet the statutory requirements of ORS 307.162(2)(a)(B) or (b). Neither party
stipulates that Plaintiff paid the late filing fee. If Plaintiff failed to pay the late filing fee, then
“an exemption may not be allowed for the tax year sought by the claim filed pursuant to this
subsection.” ORS 307.162(2)(b).
Notwithstanding that Plaintiff may not have met the late filing fee requirement, Plaintiff
does not meet the statutory requirements of a “first-time filer.” A “ „first-time filer‟ means a
claimant that:
“(A) Has never filed a claim for the property that is subject of the current claim;
and
“(B) Did not receive notice from the county assessor on or before December 1 of
the tax year for which exemption is claimed regarding the potential property tax
liability of the property.”
ORS 307.162(3)(a). ORS 307.162(3)(a) requires that a first time filer meet both requirements
because the words of the statute are joined by “and.” The parties stipulate that Plaintiff filed and
received property tax exemption for the subject property. Plaintiff is not a “first-time filer.”
Plaintiff alleges that it had “good and sufficient cause for failing to file a timely claim”
under ORS 307.162(2)(a)(B). Plaintiff asserts “that the lack of notification should be reasonably
considered „good and sufficient‟ by the argument that „no notice‟ constitutes misleading
information. * * * This is further supported by the series of annual documents which do not
provide any expiration date information and are hence also misleading through omission of
critical information.” (Ptf‟s Stip Facts at 23.) Plaintiff was given notice that the property tax
exemption would expire in June 30, 2010, and that a renewal application was required to be
made no later than April 1, 2010. (Ptf‟s Stip Facts Attach 1.) Plaintiff had ample notice but
unfortunately failed to file a timely application.
///
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 6
III. CONCLUSION
After careful review of the facts and applicable law, the court finds that the unfortunate
consequence of Plaintiff‟s failure to file a timely renewal application is disqualification of the
subject property from exemption for the 2010-11 tax year. Plaintiff‟s Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied. Defendant‟s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. Now,
therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff‟s appeal is denied.
Dated this day of June 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 June 7,
2012. The Court filed and entered this document on June 7, 2012.
DECISION TC-MD 110929D 7