The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT )
COMPANY OF MEDFORD, LLC )
d/b/a RED ROBIN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 170061R
)
v. )
)
JACKSON COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION1
Plaintiff appeals Defendant’s Notice of Tax Roll Correction for Omitted Property, dated
November 16, 2016, for the 2011-12 to 2016-17 tax years. A telephonic trial was held on
November 26, 2018. Alex Robinson appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Douglas Beiswegler
testified on behalf of Plaintiff. Ed LeRoy (LeRoy) and David Arrasmith appeared on behalf of
Defendant. LeRoy testified on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 to 8 were admitted
into evidence. Defendant’s Exhibits A to D were admitted into evidence.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of this case are derived from the parties’ stipulated facts submitted in
conjunction with Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the testimony and exhibits
presented at trial.
///
///
///
1
This Final Decision incorporates without change the court’s Decision, entered May 29, 2019. 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).
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 1
Plaintiff owns certain improvements built in 1999 and operated as a Red Robin restaurant
(the “Subject Property”)2. The Subject Property is a free-standing building at the northeast
corner of Jackson Street and Biddle Road. The land under the Subject Property has been owned
by different entities, but since February 2017, it has been owned by LBG Medford DN LLC.
Plaintiff (as tenant) has leased the land under the Subject Property since its construction and is
responsible for an allocated portion of property tax for the tax account.
Since the Subject Property’s construction, the land underlying the Subject Property has
been taxed as part of the assessor’s account number 10759851, which contains several larger
buildings. That tax account is part of nine other tax accounts making up a shopping center
commonly known as the Medford Center. An individual tax statement was not issued for the
Subject Property from its construction in 1999, until August 16, 2016, when the assessor created
an “improvements only” account identified as 11003503. The assessor created the account after
determining that the land under the Subject Property had been taxed under account 10759851 but
the building had been omitted from the tax rolls.
Parts of Medford Center have been the subject of several property tax appeals since the
construction of the Subject Property. In connection with one such appeal, the assessor’s office
conducted a site visit of the Medford Center on June 22, 2009, and prepared an appraisal that did
not include the Subject Property.
The owner of the relevant portion of Medford Center brought an appeal to the Jackson
County Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA) for the 2012-13 tax year. The date of value at
issue in the 2012-13 appeal was January 1, 2012. Following the filing of the 2012-13 appeal, a
2
In property tax appeals, the court typically uses the term “Subject Property” to describe all of the property
within an assessor’s tax account, however, in this case the term Subject Property refers only to the improvement in
dispute, which is the Red Robin building.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 2
representative of the Jackson County Assessor’s Office physically appraised the appealed portion
of Medford Center. LeRoy was the appraiser assigned to perform the county’s appraisal for the
hearing before BOPTA. LeRoy’s site visit of the appealed portion of Medford Center took place
on January 23, 2013. LeRoy, while performing the appraisal for the county, noted in his file to
“include Red Robin in GBA [gross business area].” (Ptf’s Ex 2.) LeRoy’s appraisal for the
2012-13 appeal included the Subject Property as part of the assessor’s estimate of real market
value presented to BOPTA. No tax roll change was made by the BOPTA decision because it
was appealed to the Tax Court-Magistrate Division under case TC-MD 130287C. The
Department of Revenue represented Jackson County in the Magistrate Division. The
Department’s 71-page summary appraisal report of the entire Medford Center was submitted to
the court as a trial exhibit in TC-MD 130287C. The appraisal report specifically identifies and
places a value for the square footage of the Subject Property. The case was settled by an
agreement of the parties prior to trial.
On or about November 16, 2016, the assessor created an “improvements only” account
for the Subject Property and issued a notice of tax roll correction for omitted property (the
“Omitted Property Notice”) for the 2011-12 through 2016-17 tax years. This appeal ensued.
II. ANALYSIS
The issues in this case are whether the Subject Property was omitted from the tax rolls for the
years in issue, and, if so, whether the county assessor may add the value to the rolls. Plaintiff argues
that the Subject Property was not omitted from the tax rolls because it was included in county and
state appraisals in conjunction with prior tax appeals. Plaintiff further argues that even if the subject
property was omitted from the tax rolls, administrative rule OAR 150-311-210(3)3 and Tax Court
3
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR).
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 3
decisions beginning with West Foods v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 7 (1985) preclude the property from
being added to the rolls. Defendant argues that the improvements for the Subject Property have
never been taxed because there are no county records showing an increase in maximum assessed
value after the Subject Property was built, and because the tax roll changes made pursuant to prior
Magistrate Division appeals were based on negotiated settlements and not based on appraisals.
A. Was the Subject Property Included on the Tax Rolls?
Each year, every county tax assessor must assess and list on the assessment rolls the real
market value of land and the real market value of “all buildings, structures and improvements.”
ORS 308.215.4 One might assume that determining whether an improvement to a property is on
the tax rolls would be a simple matter of looking at a card or a print-out of a county assessor’s
computerized tax records. Yet, in this case it is not that simple. The Subject Property is part of a
large shopping center comprised of nine separate tax lots and many different buildings within
those tax lots. (Ptf’s Ex 3 at 39.) Included within the tax account at issue here are several large
buildings and a relatively small Red Robin restaurant on its own separate pad. Neither Plaintiff’s
documents nor county records submitted as exhibits show any direct evidence that the Subject
Property was added to the tax rolls. Instead, Plaintiff presents circumstantial evidence that as
part of an appeal for the 2012-13 tax year, the county appraised the Subject Property, and LeRoy,
while performing the appraisal for the county, noted in his file to “include Red Robin in GBA
[gross business area].” Additionally, in connection with that appeal, the Department of Revenue,
as an intervenor, included the Subject Property in its appraisal. Neither of the appraisals
represents direct evidence that the Subject Property was actually included on the tax rolls during
the 2011-12 or 2012-13 tax years. Further, that case was settled prior to trial and the significance
4
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2015.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 4
of the data in the appraisals in reaching that settlement is unknown. Logic suggests that LeRoy
would only make a specific notation about including the Subject Property in conjunction with his
appraisal because he believed it was not already on the tax roll. The appraiser for the
Department of Revenue did not specifically state she had reviewed the county’s tax rolls but did
include the square footage of the Subject Property in the analysis. In its Motion for Summary
Judgment, Plaintiff concedes that the evidence is lacking with respect to the 2011-12 tax year.
(Ptf MSJ at 6.) As to the subsequent years, the direct evidence only shows that the county and
state appraised the Subject Property but is inconclusive whether Subject Property was actually
included on the County’s tax rolls.
B. May the County Assessor Add the Value to the Rolls as Omitted Property?
ORS 311.216 allows county assessors to add property that has been omitted from the tax
assessment rolls. However, “[o]nce a tax assessor has determined the value of property and
listed it on the assessment roll, the assessor may not correct the value listed on the assessment
roll merely because he or she ‘would [now] arrive at a different opinion of value.’ ORS
311.205(1)(b).” Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main St. Phase II, LLC (Village II),
349 Or 330, 332, 245 P3d 81 (2010). At first glance the court’s lack of finding about the Subject
Property’s inclusion on the tax roll in the above analysis would tend towards a conclusion that
the assessor could add the property as omitted pursuant to ORS 311.216. However, the court
finds Plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence that the value of the Subject Property was included on
the rolls for the 2012-13 tax year persuasive. The court finds that prior tax court decisions that
support Defendant’s position can be distinguished and further finds an alternative basis for the
court to grant, in part, Plaintiff’s appeal.
///
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 5
Plaintiff urges the court to follow West Foods, arguing that the Subject Property was in
existence at the time of an appraisal, and was an integral part of the property, and thus cannot be
added to the tax rolls as omitted property. In West Foods, the county physically appraised a
mushroom growing operation in 1973 and then again in 1980. Between those two appraisals the
taxpayer had built growing beds, which the county asserted they “missed.” West Foods, 10 OTR
at 10. The Tax Court held that if an assessor failed to include the value of property that was “in
existence at the time of an appraisal and [was] an ‘integral part’ of property that was physically
appraised,” then the assessor could not add the property as omitted. Village II, 349 Or at 334
(citation omitted). The holding in West Foods is now reflected in the Department of Revenue’s
administrative rule 150-311-0210(2)(b) and was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in
Village II.
The problem with Plaintiff’s reliance on West Foods is that this court is unable to find that
the Subject Property is an “integral part” of the tax lot or the mall as a whole. The Subject
Property is one of multiple buildings contained a single tax lot that is part of a series of other tax
lots, which makes up a large shopping mall. Missing infrastructure or additions to a building are
one thing, but missing an entire building is another, as the Tax Court pointed out in Miller v. Dept.
of Rev., 16 OTR 4 (2001). In Miller, the court stated that West Foods “stands only for the principle
that where an assessor fails to take into account all fixtures present in a building or structure at the
time of a physical appraisal but does take into account the structure as a whole, the matter is one of
undervaluation.” Id. at 7. The court further emphasized that “[c]ase law does not support a
conclusion that the failure to assess an entire building is an undervaluation.” Id.
The Tax Court later addressed its Miller decision in Clackamas Cty. Assessor v. Village
at Main Street I, LLC, 20 OTR 9 (2009), aff'd, 349 Or 330, 245 P3d 81 (2010). In that case the
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 6
Tax Court noted that the barn in Miller was a completely separate structure and so was “not an
‘integral part’ of the property that was certified on the tax roll.” Id. at 15 (internal cites omitted).
The Tax Court in Village noted that it was following West Foods and distinguishing Miller.
Ultimately, this court does not find West Foods applicable to this case, because the allegations
here are that the county missed an entire building.
The holding in Miller on its face does not help Plaintiff, but that case is distinguishable.
One significant difference from Miller is that here the Subject Property was part of several
appeals and a stipulated judgment. In the appeal for the 2012-13 tax year, there is significant
circumstantial evidence that the value of the Subject Property was part of the county and
Department of Revenue’s appraisals and part of the process which produced a stipulated value
that resulted in a change to the tax rolls. It appears to the court that, although the Subject
Property was not added to the tax roll by any traditional statutory process, the value was added to
the rolls through the appeal and resulting stipulation. Thus, the court finds the Subject Property
was not omitted from the tax rolls beginning in the 2012-13 tax year.
There is an additional basis to prevent the county from adding the Subject Property as
omitted property which was not briefed by the parties. That is the concept commonly referred to
as “adjudicated value.” ORS 309.115(1) protects taxpayers by maintaining an adjudicated real
market value on the rolls for five years after the order is entered by the Department of Revenue,
BOPTA, the Tax Court, or other court. ORS 309.115 contains eight exceptions to the
immutability of a real market value during the imposed five-year period. Adjustments to the real
market value can be made within the five-year period for: annual trending, indexing, or
depreciation; additions; retirements; increases directly related to additions, remodeling, or
rehabilitation made to the property; changes directly related to subdividing or partitioning the
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 7
property; changes directly related to rezoning the property; or for property damaged, destroyed,
or otherwise subject to loss of real market value. No part of the statute allows adjustments to be
made for omitted property during the five-year period and none of the other exceptions apply
here. Allowing the county to go over the top of a stipulated agreement, which then became an
adjudicated value, would violate the text and spirit of ORS 309.115.
III. CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, this court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of
proof that the Subject Property was not omitted for the 2011-12 tax year. However, through the
subsequent processes of tax appeals, appraisals, and a stipulated agreement the value of the
Subject Property was included in changes to the tax roll during the 2012-13 tax year. Therefore,
the Subject Property cannot be treated as omitted. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal for the 2011-12 tax year
is denied.
IT IS THE FURTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal for the
2012-13 to 2016-17 tax years is granted.
Dated this day of June 2019.
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 Richard Davis and entered on June 17,
2019.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170061R 8