The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
ALPINE LAND, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 130320D
)
v. )
)
BAKER COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
This matter is before the court on the parties’ signed stipulated agreements for tax years
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, requesting the court to order a change in the
real market value and maximum assessed value for Account 17134.
After receipt of the parties signed stipulation, the court sent the parties a letter, requesting
that the parties set forth the statutory authority allowing the court to order the Baker County
Assessor to change the tax rolls for each of the tax years stated in the signed stipulated
agreements.
On July 1, 2013, Defendant’s response was filed, stating that the “statutory authority” is
“ORS 305.288[1](b).” ORS 305.288(1)(b)1 states that:
“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.”
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 board of property tax appeals. See ORS 309.100. In limited circumstances, the court can
1
All references to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011. There were no applicable statutory changes
to ORS 305.288 for years prior to 2011 for the tax years before the court.
DECISION TC-MD 130320D 1
consider an appeal to reduce real market value even though a taxpayer fails to follow the statutorily
prescribed process. ORS 305.288(1) permits the court to reduce the value of the property “for the
current tax year or for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year, or for
any or all of those tax years,” if, for the tax year in dispute, there is either an allegation of an error in
value of at least 20 percent and it is attributable to property that was used “primarily as a dwelling,”
or “good and sufficient cause” for the taxpayer’s failure to follow the prescribed appeal process.
ORS 305.288(1), (3).
The first exception, ORS 305.288(1)(b), is not applicable to vacant or uninhabited land. See
Harty v. Deschutes County Assessor, TC-MD No 110006D, WL 1196413 at *1 (Mar 30, 2011); and
Rice v. Yamhill County Assessor, TC-MD No 010854D, WL 1012790 (Aug 13, 2001). That provision
is inapplicable to the matter before the court because the subject property is an unimproved lot for
each of the tax years appealed.
The other exception, ORS 305.288(3), is applicable where the taxpayer establishes “good and
sufficient cause” for failing to appeal to the county board before appealing to the Tax Court. ORS
305.288(5)(b)(A) defines “good and sufficient cause” as “an extraordinary circumstance that is
beyond the control of the taxpayer[.]” In its letter dated July 1, 2013, Defendant’s representative,
Kerry B. Savage (Savage), wrote:
“The taxpayer was also relying on information provided on the tax
statements that the property was zoned in such a way that it was buildable. ORS
305.288(B) Does not include inadvertence, oversight, lack of knowledge,
hardship or reliance on misleading information provided by any person except an
authorized tax official providing the relevant misleading information.”
*****
“This is also the information that the property owners relied on until the
property owner actually verified the true zoning of the property rather than relying
on the information provided on the tax statement and what was of record in the
Assessor’s Office.”
///
DECISION TC-MD 130320D 2
According to Savage, Plaintiff relied on “relevant misleading information” provided by “an
authorized tax official.” The parties agree that Plaintiff had good and sufficient cause for failing
to file an appeal with the county board.
ORS 305.288(1)(a) provides statutory authority to the court to “order a change or
correction * * * to the assessment and tax roll for the current tax year or either of the two tax
years immediately preceding the current tax year, or for any or all of those tax years” if one of
the two exceptions are met. The court has statutory authority to order a change to the tax roll for
tax years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. There is no statutory authority to order a change for
tax years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the values of property described as
Account 17134 are, as stipulated for the following tax years:
Tax Year: 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Real Market Value
Land: $1,740 $1,740 $1,920
Improvements: $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
Total: $1,740 $1,740 $1,920
Exception Real Market Value: $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
Maximum Assessed Value: $1,393 $1,434 $1,477
Assessed Value: $1,393 $1,434 $1,477.
///
///
///
///
///
///
DECISION TC-MD 130320D 3
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiff’s appeal of tax years 2008-09 and 2009-10 is
dismissed.
Dated this day of July 2013.
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 Decision was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on
July 15, 2013. The Court filed and entered this Decision on July 15, 2013.
DECISION TC-MD 130320D 4