The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
MARK JOSEPH CARRATO )
and PADMAJA SHETTY, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 140061D
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL
The court entered its Decision of Dismissal in the above-entitled matter on June 24, 2014.
The court did not receive a request for an award of costs and disbursements (TCR-MD 19)
within 14 days after its Decision of Dismissal was entered. The court’s Final Decision of
Dismissal incorporates its Decision of Dismissal without change.
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Motion) filed
April 11, 2014, requesting that the Complaint be dismissed. A case management conference was
held May 6, 2014. Mark Carrato (Carrato) appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Jeff Brown,
registered appraiser, appeared on behalf of Defendant. The parties discussed Plaintiffs’ appeal
and Defendant’s Motion. Carrato agreed to submit a written response to Defendant’s Motion
postmarked no later than June 6, 2014. As of this date, Plaintiffs have neither filed a written
response to Defendant’s Motion nor communicated with the court.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 7, 2014, appealing the real market value of
property identified as Account R189701 (subject property) for the 2013-14 tax year. Plaintiffs
assert that “[t]he property assessment is far over market value, more than 20 [percent].” (Ptf’s
///
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140061D 1
Compl at 1.) The real market value of the subject property on the 2013-14 tax roll is $541,730.
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs request the court to order a real market value of $451,000. (Id. at 1.)
In its Motion, Defendant requested dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, stating that
Plaintiffs failed to appeal to the Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA) as
required under ORS 305.275(3) prior to appealing to this court, and that the court lacks
jurisdiction under ORS 305.288(1) or ORS 305.288(3) to address Plaintiffs’ Complaint.1 (Def’s
Mot at 1.)
II. ANALYSIS
A. ORS 305.275
The Oregon Legislature enacted laws that guide taxpayers challenging the real market
value assigned to their properties. In most cases, the first step in the appeal process is to file a
petition with the local county BOPTA no later than December 31 of the current year. See ORS
309.100.2 A taxpayer may then appeal to this court if the statutory requirements of ORS 305.275
are met. For tax year 2013-14, Plaintiffs have not shown that they appealed the real market
value of their property to BOPTA, and followed the appeal process provided by ORS 305.275.
See 305.275(3) (“[i]f a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100, then no appeal
may be allowed under this section”).
B. ORS 305.288
The legislature recognized there would be certain situations in which a taxpayer would
not make a timely appeal to BOPTA. As a result, the legislature granted the court authority to
review untimely appeals and reduce the real market value if there is either: (1) an error in the real
1
In its Motion, Defendant referenced ORS 309.026, a statute describing BOPTA but not the appeal
process. Cf. ORS 309.100.
2
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011.
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140061D 2
market value of at least 20 percent, or (2) a good reason for the taxpayer’s failure to appeal to
BOPTA. ORS 305.288. ORS 305.288(1) permits the court to reduce the value of the property
“for the current tax year” if, for the tax year in dispute, there is either an allegation of an error in
real market value of at least 20 percent and it is attributable to property that was used “primarily
as a dwelling,” or there is “good and sufficient cause” for the taxpayer’s failure to follow the
prescribed appeal process. ORS 305.288(1), (3).
1. Twenty percent error on the tax roll
“ORS 305.288(1) allows this court to order a change to the tax roll for the current tax
year and the two immediately prior tax years if a property is both ‘used primarily as a dwelling *
* * and was and is a single-family dwelling [and] * * * 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.’ ” Martin v. Yamhill County Assessor, TC-
MD 110246D at 4, WL 3882293 at *2 (Sept 1, 2011).
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he property assessment is far over market
value, more than 20 [percent].” (Ptf’s Compl at 1.) Plaintiffs request that the court order a real
market value of $451,000, which is not equal to or greater than 20 percent of the real market
value on the assessment and tax roll for 2013-14 tax year. (Ptf’s Compl at 1.) Plaintiffs’
requested real market value of $451,000 is only 17 percent less than the tax roll value of
$541,730. Plaintiffs’ requested relief does not meet the statutory requirements of ORS
305.288(1). This court does not have jurisdiction under ORS 305.288(1).
///
///
///
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140061D 3
2. Good and sufficient cause
The court may have jurisdiction under ORS 305.288(3) if Plaintiffs show “good and
sufficient cause” for their failure to timely pursue an appeal with BOPTA. ORS 305.288(5)(b)
states that the term “good and sufficient cause”:
“(A) Means an extraordinary circumstance that is beyond the control of
the taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s agent or representative, and that causes the
taxpayer, agent or representative to fail to pursue the statutory right of appeal; and
“(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.”
Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence suggesting they have “good and sufficient
cause” for failing to timely pursue their remedy with BOPTA. Plaintiffs were granted an
opportunity by the court to respond to Defendant’s Motion, but Plaintiffs have not submitted a
written response.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs did not timely appeal the 2013-14 tax year to BOPTA as required by ORS
309.100, nor do they meet the statutory requirements of ORS 305.288. Accordingly, the court
has no jurisdiction and must dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
The Complaint is dismissed.
Dated this day of July 2014.
JILL A. TANNER
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Final 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 Final
Decision or this Final Decision cannot be changed.
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140061D 4
This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on July 11,
2014. The court filed and entered this document on July 11, 2014.
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140061D 5