# Oregon TDM, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor

> Oregon Tax Court · September 20, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10606742

## Case

- **Court:** Oregon Tax Court
- **Decided:** September 20, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10606742

## Opinion text

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax

OREGON TDM, INC. )
aka BALDEEP BASRAON, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 160227R
)
v. )
)
MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL1

This matter came before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss contained in its

Answer, filed June 15, 2016.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on May 16, 2016, requesting that the court “excuse” taxes on

property identified as account P344524 for the 2009-10 through 2012-13 tax years. Plaintiff

filed its response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on July 19, 2016. Defendant filed its reply on

July 28, 2016. This matter is now ready for the court’s determination.

Plaintiff purchased the subject property on October 23, 2013. (Compl at 2.) According

to Defendant, “Plaintiff acquired property which had pre-existing tax liens on it.” (Reply at 2.)

Plaintiff’s representative acknowledged that “[t]he property taxes charged are the owed amount

of previous owners. I do understand that now I am responsible for these charges.” (Compl at 2.)

However, Plaintiff requested that the court excuse its liability for taxes assessed in the years prior

to its purchase of the property because Plaintiff was “not aware of such taxes” at the time of

purchase. Id.

///

1
This Final Decision of Dismissal incorporates without change the court’s Decision of Dismissal, entered
August 31, 2016. The court did not receive a statement of costs and disbursements within 14 days after its Decision
of Dismissal was entered. See Tax Court Rule–Magistrate Division (TCR–MD) 16 C(1).

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 160227R 1
In its Answer, Defendant requested that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal on three

grounds: (1) no appeal to the county board of property tax appeals (BOPTA) was filed for the

years at issue; the court’s jurisdiction under ORS 305.288 does not extend to the years at issue;

and (3) the court lacks jurisdiction to award the relief requested by Plaintiff. (Ans at 1.)

In general, a taxpayer wishing to challenge the value assigned to its property may file a

petition with BOPTA no later than December 31 of the current tax year. See ORS 309.100.2 A

taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the BOPTA order may then appeal to this court under ORS

305.275 within 30 days of the date of the order. See ORS 305.275(3); ORS 305.280(4). If a

taxpayer fails to appeal to BOPTA within the time required, ORS 305.288(3) allows the court to

“order a change or correction * * * for the current tax year and for either of the two tax years

immediately preceding the current tax year if, for the year to which the change or correction is

applicable, the assessor or taxpayer has no statutory right of appeal remaining and the tax court

determines good and sufficient cause exists for the failure by the * * * taxpayer to pursue the

statutory right of appeal.”

There is no evidence that Plaintiff appealed to BOPTA for any for the years at issue, and

the court’s authority to correct the tax rolls for the current and previous two tax years (2015-16,

2014-15, and 2013-14) does not extend to the tax years appealed by Plaintiff.3 But even if either

of those avenues of appeal were open to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not challenged the underlying

value of the property or asked the court to correct an error on the rolls. Instead, Plaintiff asks the

court to excuse its liability for the tax years at issue.

///

2
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2015.
3
The “current tax year” at the time Plaintiff filed its Complaint was 2015-16. ORS 306.115; 308.007(1)(c).

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 160227R 2
That brings the court to Defendant’s third argument: the court does not have the authority

to grant the relief requested by Plaintiff. That argument is well taken. Plaintiff has not

challenged the fact that the tax liens existed at the time it purchased the subject property or

argued that it is entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser. See ORS 311.641. Rather,

Plaintiff has acknowledged its ultimate responsibility for the delinquent taxes; Plaintiff simply

requests that the court relieve it from that responsibility for tax years in which it did not own the

subject property. It is unfortunate that Plaintiff is now responsible for a tax liability that was

incurred by another. However, the court is not aware of any source of law that would allow it to

grant the relief requested by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal

must be dismissed. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Dated this day of September 2016.

RICHARD DAVIS
MAGISTRATE

If you want to appeal this Final Decision of Dismissal, 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 of Dismissal or this Final Decision of Dismissal cannot be changed.
TCR-MD 19 B.

This document was filed and entered on September 20, 2016.

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 160227R 3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10606742. Public record. Not legal advice.