The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
YWCA OF GREATER PORTLAND, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 130021D
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 8, 2013.
A telephone case management conference was held in the above-entitled matter on
February 25, 2013. Leslie Bevan, Executive Director, YWCA of Greater Portland, appeared on
behalf of Plaintiff. Debbie Atwood, Tax Exemption Specialist, Multnomah County Division of
Assessment, Recording & Taxation, appeared on behalf of Defendant. After discussing
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Motion), Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to submit its
written response to Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff’s response was filed March 6, 2013. As of
this date, Defendant has not submitted a written reply.
Defendant’s Motion stated that Plaintiff’s Complaint “was not filed within the time
permitted by law as provided below:
“The complaint was not filed within 90 days after the date that the act or
determination of the assessor was actually known to the taxpayer. ORS 305.280.
“Nor does the Court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint under ORS 305.288(3). The complaint does not allege facts showing
good and sufficient cause for failure to pursue the statutory right of appeal.”
In its letter dated March 5, 2013, Plaintiff wrote that the “rationale for opposing the
motion to dismiss is that the YWCA of Greater Portland was not notified of the 90-day time
limit, nor was the YWCA notified of the right to appeal the notification of status change.”
DECISION TC-MD130021D 1
Defendant’s Notification of Status Change, dated September 18, 2012, listed one tax account
followed by an address. (Compl at 2.) The Notification of Status Change stated:
“The properties will become 58.831% taxable beginning with the tax year
2012/13. The reason for the status change is:
“Change of use.
*****
“If the property is leased to an exempt entity, then they would be required
to file for the tax exemption. * * *.
“If you have any questions, please contact our office at * * *.”
(Id.)
According to Plaintiff, after receiving the 2012-13 property tax statement from
Defendant, Plaintiff concluded that an appeal of Defendant’s Notification of Status Change,
dated September 18, 2012, “must be received/postmarked by December 31, 2012 to be
considered.” (Ptf’s ltr, dated Mar 5, 2012, at 1.) (emphasis in original.) Plaintiff wrote:
“On December 28, 2012, The YWCA of Greater Portland submitted an
appeal of the Change of Use assessment and consequent tax against the non-
profits (sic) properties. * * *.
“I [Leslie Bevan] received a letter on January 7, 2013 informing me that
the court had received the appeal and accompanying documents relating to
property tax account R246556. I was informed that the documents weren’t filed
and they were being returned to me because my request for fee waiver was not
done appropriately.
“Subsequently, I called Erin Dawson, who assured me that I could return
the complaints with the $240 application fee—and that the application could still
be filed, that is the application would be considered to have been received by the
deadline. I also learned that entities (as opposed to individuals) are not eligible
for a fee waiver. It was important to hear that the application would still be
accepted before investing $480 [two separate complaints were submitted] in the
appeal process.
“On January 11, 2013, I received a letter confirming that the YWCA’s
complaint was filed.”
(Id. at 1-2.)
DECISION TC-MD130021D 2
A. Notice
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Notification of Status Change failed to provide Plaintiff
with notice of its appeal rights. In a prior decision, this court concluded that “the assessor is
permitted to alter position as to exemption or valuation without notice to the property owner
prior to the issuance of the tax statement” when the change in position is made before
certification of the tax roll. Multnomah County Assessor v. Portland Development Commission
(Portland Development Commission), TC 5008, WL 5925128 at *2 (Nov 29, 2011.) In the case
before the court, Defendant made its change to the status of Plaintiff’s property in September
2012, before the tax roll was certified for the 2012-13 tax year.
Even though Defendant had no statutory obligation to notify Plaintiff, Defendant did
provide Plaintiff notice. Because there is no notice requirement, there are no statutory
requirements specifying notice content.
B. Appeal Rights
In Portland Development Commission, the court held that “the statutes provide ways for
the adversely affected owner to challenge the decision [denying exemption] of the assessor.
ORS 309.100; ORS 305.275.” (Id.)
ORS 309.1001 provides in pertinent part that “the owner or an owner of any taxable
property or any person who holds an interest in the property that obligates the person to pay
taxes imposed on the property, may petition the board of property tax appeals for relief as
authorized under ORS 309.026.” ORS 309.026(2) states that the jurisdiction of the board of
property tax appeals is limited to “petitions for the reduction of:” assessed value or specially
///
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011 unless otherwise indicated.
DECISION TC-MD130021D 3
assessed value, real market value, maximum assessed value and corrections to value made under
ORS 311.208.
Plaintiff filed an appeal with this court, challenging Defendant’s act of disqualifying its
property from exemption, not the property’s real market value. Plaintiff’s Complaint requested
the following relief: “Request that status to exempt be reinstated. Also request a fee waiver as
provide under ORS 21.685.” 2 Because Plaintiff is not requesting a value reduction, the board of
property tax appeals has no jurisdiction to handle petitions related to exemption of property.
Plaintiff’s appeal rights are found in ORS 305.275 and 305.280. ORS 305.275 provides
in pertinent part, that:
“(1) Any person may appeal under this subsection to the magistrate
division of the Oregon tax Court as provided in ORS 305.280 and 305.560, if all
of the following criteria are met:
“(a) The person must be aggrieved by and affected by an act,
omission, order or determination of:
*****
“(C) A county assessor or other county official, including but not
limited to the denial of a claim for exemption * * *.
“(b) The act * * * or determination must affect the property of the
person making the appeal or property for which the person making the appeal
holds an interest that obligates the person to pay taxes imposed on the property.
“(c) There is no other statutory right of appeal for the grievance.
If a person meets all of the above stated criteria, ORS 305.280 states in pertinent part that:
“(1) [A]n appeal under ORS 305.275(1) or (2) shall be filed within 90
days after the act * * * or determination becomes actually known to the person,
but, in no event later than one year after the act or omission has occurred, or the
order or determination has been made.”
///
2
Plaintiff withdrew its request to waive the filing fee.
DECISION TC-MD130021D 4
Defendant’s Notification of Status Change was dated September 18, 2012. In its
Notification of Status Change, Defendant stated that Plaintiff’s property was 58.831 percent
taxable for the tax year 2012-13 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). Defendant’s Notification
of Status Change advised Plaintiff of the action it had taken to reclassify Plaintiff’s property to
58.831 percent taxable. There is no evidence that Plaintiff did not receive that notice. There is
no evidence that Plaintiff contacted Defendant as stated on the notice: “If you have any
questions, please contact our office at * * *.” (Compl at 2.) If Plaintiff had contacted Defendant,
there may have been no need for Plaintiff’s appeal or Plaintiff’s appeal may have been filed
timely. Plaintiff’s appeal challenging Defendant’s determination that its property did not qualify
for exemption was filed more than 90 days after Defendant’s determination was known to it.
Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Dated this day of April 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 April 8,
2013. The court filed and entered this Decision on April 8, 2013.
DECISION TC-MD130021D 5