The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
HAI NGUYEN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 180199R
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION1
Plaintiff appeals the real market value of property identified as Account R230432
(subject property) for the 2017-18 tax year. A trial was held in the Oregon Tax Court on
November 16, 2018. Hai Nguyen (Nguyen) appeared and testified on his own behalf. John
James appeared on behalf of Defendant. James Trinh and Hinh Dong interpreted the
proceedings into Vietnamese for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff offered Exhibits 1 to 4 into evidence. Defendant objected because Plaintiff did not
serve Defendant with a copy of the Exhibits as required by Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division
(TCR-MD) 12 C. Plaintiff acknowledged that he had not served a copy of his Exhibits on
Defendant. He explained that he understood that the court would serve the Exhibits on Defendant.
Plaintiff’s understanding of the procedures is incorrect. TCR-MD 12 C states in part: “Each party
must provide the court and all other parties with copies of all exhibits to be introduced into evidence
in support of that party’s case. Exhibits will not be filed with the court unless they are correctly
labeled as required by this rule and proof of service on all other parties is provided.” Based on
Defendant’s objection, Plaintiff’s Exhibits were not admitted into evidence.
1
This Final Decision incorporates without change the court’s Decision, entered November 20, 2018. The
court did not receive a statement of costs and disbursements within 14 days after its Decision was entered. See Tax
Court Rule–Magistrate Division (TCR–MD) 16 C(1).
DECISION TC-MD 180199R 1
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Nguyen testified that he purchased the subject property at a foreclosure sale several years
ago. The property had significant water damage and as of the trial date he had not repaired the
damage. Nguyen testified that he agreed that Defendant’s determination of the real market value
of $703,2102 would be correct, if the property were repaired. However, he obtained an estimate
of $70,000 to repair the interior of the subject property. He did not receive an estimate for
exterior repairs, but opined it would cost around $70,000. The subject properties’ maximum
assessed value for the 2017-18 tax year was $498,310.
After Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Defendant orally moved to dismiss the case for failure to present
evidence of value. The court construed Defendant’s motion as one under Tax Court Rule (TCR) 60.
II. ANALYSIS
TCR 60 states in pertinent part:
“Any party may move for a dismissal at the close of the evidence offered by an
opponent or at the close of all the evidence. * * * A motion for dismissal shall
state the specific grounds therefor.”
The Tax Court has previously stated that “[i]n order to prevail on a motion for directed
verdict pursuant to TCR 60, the moving party must demonstrate that the record contains no
evidence to support the nonmoving party’s claim or claims. The court will not weigh the
evidence; rather, it will consider the entire record and afford the nonmoving party all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to that party.” Freitag v. Dept. of Rev.,
18 OTR 368, 373–74 (2005) (citations omitted).
///
2
The Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals did not make any change to Defendant’s
determination of value.
DECISION TC-MD 180199R 2
In Freitag, the court found that other than an opinion of the ultimate value of the subject
property, the taxpayer did not present any evidence of value. Id. at 369–70, 374. Instead, the
taxpayer merely attacked the county’s position. The court noted that “it is not enough for a
taxpayer to criticize a county’s position. Taxpayers must provide competent evidence of the
[Real Market Value] of their property.” Id. at 374 (quoting Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR
324, 332 (2005)).
Nguyen offered no evidence of the real market value of the subject property other than
his conclusion that Defendant’s real market value of $703.210 would be correct if the property
were repaired. He further opined, without evidentiary support, that it would require $140,000 to
repair the property. No exhibits were received into evidence, and Nguyen did not present any
data to support his opinion of value. Further, as the court noted at trial, even if Plaintiff’s
opinion of value were accepted as presented, the maximum assessed value would be below the
real market value.3 Because properties are taxed on the lesser of the real market value or the
maximum assessed value, even if the court agreed with his values, his property tax would not
change. Or in other words, Plaintiff would not meet the legal requirement that he be aggrieved
as required by ORS 305.275(1)(a).4
///
///
///
///
///
3
Neither party presented evidence that the subject property was or might be subject to compression.
4
References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2017.
DECISION TC-MD 180199R 3
III. CONCLUSION
The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented evidence of value in support of his appeal
and thus it grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case pursuant to TCR 60. Now, therefore
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
Dated this day of December 2018.
RICHARD DAVIS
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. TCR-MD 19 B.
This document was signed by Magistrate Davis and entered on December 11,
2018.
DECISION TC-MD 180199R 4