Richardson v. Dept. of Rev.

No. 22 February 19, 2016 207

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT

REGULAR DIVISION

Gary Leon RICHARDSON

and Christina Louise Richardson,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Defendant.

(TC 5260)

Plaintiffs (taxpayers) appealed from a Magistrate Division Decision of

Dismissal. Taxpayers requested that the court determine that the real market

value (RMV) of a house was lower than that established by the county asses-

sor in 2001. Taxpayers also asked that the maximum assessed value (MAV) of

the house be revised for that year and each subsequent tax year to reflect the

requested redetermination of RMV for the house in 2001. Granting Defendant’s

motion, the court ruled that because taxpayers did not pursue an appeal in 2001

from a BOPTA decision, there existed no other statutory right of appeal for that

year. In addition, the statutory right under ORS 305.275 was foreclosed, and

taxpayers did not seek relief under ORS 306.115.

Oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was

held December 21, 2015, by telephone.

Gary L. Richardson filed a response and argued the

cause for taxpayers pro se.

Daniel Paul, Assistant Attorney General, Department of

Justice, Salem, filed the motion and argued the cause for

Defendant Department of Revenue (the department).

Decision for Defendant rendered February 19, 2016.

HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court following oral argu-

ment on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs (tax-

payers) ask this court to determine that the real market

value (RMV) of a house is lower than that established by

the county assessor in 2001, the year in which the house

was built. Taxpayers also ask that the maximum assessed

value (MAV) of the house be revised for that year and each

208 Richardson v. Dept. of Rev.

subsequent tax year to reflect the requested redetermina-

tion of RMV for the house in 2001.

Both in their briefing and at the hearing, taxpayers

represented that all of their requested relief turns on rede-

termination of the 2001 RMV of the house. Taxpayers did

not appeal the assessor’s determination of the RMV of the

property to the appropriate Board of Property Tax Appeals

(BOPTA) in 2001.1 Instead, they only appealed tax year

2014-15 to BOPTA and then to the Tax Court.

II. ISSUES

Claims of taxpayers generally raise three funda-

mental questions: (1) jurisdiction of the court; (2) relief or

remedy authorized by law; and (3) time limits and proce-

dural requirements for seeking such relief.

III. ANALYSIS

The Tax Court, except as otherwise specifically pro-

vided by statute, has exclusive and limited jurisdiction con-

cerning questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws

of the state. ORS 305.410(1).2 The only claim made by tax-

payers here relates to the RMV and MAV of property for tax

year 2014-15. That claim arises under the tax laws of this

state, and this court has jurisdiction to consider it. However,

for reasons discussed below, this court does not have juris-

diction to establish the basis for the relief that taxpayers

request for tax year 2014-15.

The initial determination of RMV for property

is generally made by a county assessor. Relief from that

determination may be obtained in one of three ways. First,

a determination of RMV may be appealed to BOPTA by

December 31 in the year in which the determination is

made. ORS 309.100. An appeal from the decision of BOPTA

may be taken to this court. ORS 305.275(3). Officers having

charge of the property tax rolls are required to correct the

tax rolls in accordance with the determination of this court,

1

For a complete procedural history of this case, see the Magistrate Division

Order and Final Decision of Dismissal. Richardson v. Department of Revenue,

TC-MD 150091N (Order, June 26, 2015; Final Decision of Dismissal, Aug 17,

2015).

2

The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2013.

Cite as 22 OTR 207 (2016) 209

subject only to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. ORS

305.440. As taxpayers did not appeal the 2001 RMV to the

appropriate BOPTA in the appropriate year, this route to

relief is foreclosed.

The second route to relief from an assessor’s

determination of RMV is by application to Defendant

Department of Revenue (the department) to exercise its

supervisory authority over assessors. ORS 306.115. If relief

is granted, officers having charge of the tax rolls must make

the changes ordered. ORS 306.115(3); ORS 311.205(1)(d).

Relief in such cases may be for the current tax year and the

two immediately preceding years, even when no appeal to

BOPTA was taken. ORS 306.115(3). Taxpayers here did not

seek this relief from the department, so this route to relief is

also foreclosed in this court.

The third route to relief is pursuant to ORS 305.288.

That statute directs the Tax Court to order changes or cor-

rections to an RMV determined by an assessor for the cur-

rent year and the two immediately preceding years where

the property is a dwelling and the assessment differential

is equal to or greater than twenty percent. ORS 305.288(1).

The remedy under ORS 305.288 is also available if, for

good and sufficient cause, no other statutory right of appeal

exists. ORS 305.288(3). Relief may include a redetermina-

tion of the MAV for a year in which the RMV is corrected.

If the court orders a correction, the officers in charge of the

rolls must make the correction. ORS 311.205(1)(d).

Because taxpayers did not pursue an appeal in

2001 from a BOPTA decision, there exists no other statu-

tory right of appeal to this court for that year. The statu-

tory right under ORS 305.275 was foreclosed, and taxpayers

did not seek relief under ORS 306.115. The only potential

route to relief is ORS 305.288. However, that relief is avail-

able only for the year for which the complaint is filed, the

“current tax year,” and the two immediately preceding tax

years. However, taxpayers do not seek a redetermination

of RMV for the property for tax year 2014-15 or any of the

two immediately preceding years. Rather, taxpayers seek

a redetermination of the MAV for tax year 2014-15 and the

two preceding years, based on a redetermination of the

210 Richardson v. Dept. of Rev.

RMV for the property for the 2001 year. ORS 305.288 sim-

ply does not provide jurisdiction for this court to make such

a determination for 2001.

Taxpayers assert, however, that the actions of the

assessor amount to fraud or deceit. Based on that assertion,

taxpayers further argue that the statute of limitations for

such an action, found in ORS 12.110, applies to the claim

for relief. The problem with this argument is that the lim-

iting factor in this case is not a statute of limitations but

rather whether the court has the statutory power to order

a correction of the RMV, and derivatively the MAV, of the

home in 2001. The court has no such power. Its jurisdiction

and power to remedy alleged errors in the assessment pro-

cess is as described in the statutes discussed above. None

of those statutes provide a basis for further proceedings in

this case.

To the extent that taxpayers seek to make a claim

for the torts of fraud or deceit, this court has no jurisdiction

over such a claim. It is settled law that this court has no

jurisdiction over tort claims, even when the factual context

of those claims involves the processes of taxation of prop-

erty. Sanok v. Grimes, 294 Or 684, 701, 662 P2d 693 (1983).

Taxpayers argue that subsection (6) of ORS 305.288

implies that there are other remedies provided by law. That

may be, but it does not help taxpayers here. ORS 305.288(6)

serves to make clear that failure to meet property type, size

of dispute, and other conditions of ORS 305.288 does not

bar a taxpayer from potentially obtaining relief elsewhere.

For example, a taxpayer unable to qualify for relief from

this court under ORS 305.288 might obtain relief from the

department under ORS 306.115. Additionally, a remedy for

a taxpayer may be available under ORS 311.806.

ORS 305.288(6) makes clear that such remedies

are not foreclosed by the existence of the remedy provided

generally in ORS 305.288. However, ORS 305.288 does not

purport to extend the jurisdiction of this court or the reme-

dial pathways that the legislature has created. Taxpayers’

claims regarding tax years more than two years prior,

including redetermination of the 2001 RMV of the house,

are outside the jurisdiction of this court. Myslony v. Dept.

Cite as 22 OTR 207 (2016) 211

of Rev., 21 OTR 146 (2013). Accordingly, the department’s

motion to dismiss for tax years before 2012-13 is granted.

With respect to tax years 2012-13 through 2014-15,

this court has jurisdiction to consider the claims because

(a) tax year 2014-15 was appealed to BOPTA, and (b) tax

years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are the two immediately preced-

ing tax years. As noted, however, taxpayers admitted that

their requested relief depends upon redetermination of the

2001 RMV. Accordingly, while this court has jurisdiction to

consider the RMV and MAV for tax years 2012-13 through

2014-15, it cannot provide the requested relief, which creates

a question of whether the department’s motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction can be granted for tax years 2012-13

through 2014-15. Either the basis for the relief requested

removes taxpayers’ claims from this court’s jurisdiction—

and the motion should be granted—or the court still has

jurisdiction but it must deny the requested relief. Procedural

intricacies aside, it is clear that regardless of whether the

department is allowed to stand on its motion to dismiss or is

required to move for summary judgment, taxpayers would

still have no proper basis for the relief requested.

IV. CONCLUSION

Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dis-

miss is granted.