The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
BENJAMIN CLAPA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 111121D
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appeals the 2010-11 real market value of property identified as Account
R321906 (subject property).1 A trial was held in the Oregon Tax Courtroom, Salem, Oregon on
April 3, 2012. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. Jeffrey Brown (Brown), Real Property
Appraiser, Multnomah County Oregon, Division of Assessment, Recording & Taxation,
appeared on behalf of Defendant.
Defendant’s Exhibit A was admitted, noting Plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiff objected to
Defendant’s evidence being admitted, stating that his evidence was not admitted even though he
brought his comparable sales data to court.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff testified that he has been a real estate broker for more than 30 years. He testified
that he purchased the subject property in 2005, paying $155,000. Plaintiff testified that 2005 was
the “peak of the market” and since then, the market has gone “down, big time.” In response to
Brown’s question, Plaintiff testified that as of February 2, 2010, he listed the subject property for
sale at a price of $189,950. He testified that because he is a broker it “cost nothing” for him to
1
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss with its Answer, filed May 31, 2011, stating that Plaintiff’s appeal
was not filed timely. Plaintiff’s requested relief met the statutory requirement of ORS 305.288(1) (2009), alleging a
“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” that “is equal to or greater than 20 percent.” Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss was denied and the above-entitled matter was set for trial.
DECISION TC-MD 111121D 1
list the property and he had no offers, stating it was “overpriced.” Plaintiff testified that he
believes his requested 2010-11 real market value of $87,000 was the subject property’s real
market value as of January 1, 2010.
Brown offered Defendant’s Appraisal Report, stating that even though “all three
approaches to value were considered in the course of this appraisal process * * * the Sales
Comparison Approach was regarded as the most relevant and reliable valuation method for the
subject property * * *.” (Def’s Ex A at 4.) The report stated that “[t]he adjusted sales prices [of
the three] comparable[] [properties] range[] from $165,250 to $169,100[,]” concluding that “a
retrospective estimate of market value of $166,000 is indicated and well supported.” (Id.) The
Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals Order, dated March 4, 2011, determined a
real market value of $180,360. (Ptf’s Compl at 2.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue before this court is the subject property’s real market value for the tax year
2010-11. “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, at *2 (Mar 26, 2003) (citing Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 343, 345 (1995)).
ORS 308.205(1)2 defines the “real market value” of both real and personal property as “the
amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an
informed seller [in exchange for the property], each acting without compulsion in an arm’s-
length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year.” OAR 150.308.205
(A)(2)(a) (2010) sets out three “approaches” that Plaintiff “must” consider when determining the
real market value of property: the sales comparison approach, cost approach, and income
2
All references to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2009 edition.
DECISION TC-MD 111121D 2
approach. See ORS 308.205(2). Plaintiff did not use any of the three approaches. Defendant relied
on the sales comparison approach.
“In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal
therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The
burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief.” 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, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001)
(citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (1971)). 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), vac’d and rem’d in
part on other grounds, 341 Or 186, 139 P3d 962 (2006). 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 offered his own testimony as an Oregon licensed real estate broker in support of his
requested real market value. He did not submit an appraisal report. Plaintiff’s only evidence to rebut
Defendant’s appraisal report was his belief that the real market value of the subject property was
incorrect based on comparable sale data that he collected. Because Plaintiff failed to follow the
court’s exhibit evidence rules, the court did not have access to Plaintiff’s evidence. Even though
Plaintiff testified that he believed the real market value of the property was incorrect, Plaintiff as
a real estate broker listed the subject property for sale at a approximately $100,000 more than he
believes the real market value of the property was as of the assessment date.
///
DECISION TC-MD 111121D 3
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.
Defendant’s comparable sales approach supports the real market value on the tax roll.
III. CONCLUSION
After a review of the Plaintiff’s testimony, the court concludes that Plaintiff failed to
carry his burden of proof. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.
Dated this day of May 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 May 21,
2012. The Court filed and entered this document on May 21, 2012.
DECISION TC-MD 111121D 4