D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

384 October 5, 2023 No. 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

D.E. SHAW RENEWABLE INVESTMENTS, LLC;

Benson Creek Windfarm, LLC;

Durbin Creek Windfarm, LLC;

Jett Creek Windfarm, LLC;

Prospector Windfarm, LLC;

and Willow Springs Windfarm, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

State of Oregon,

Defendant-Respondent.

(TC 5421) (SC S069563)

On appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.*

Robert T. Manicke, Judge.

Argued and submitted May 11, 2023.

Eric J. Kodesch, Lane Powell PC, Portland, argued the

cause for appellants. Bruce H. Cahn filed the briefs. Also on

the briefs was Eric J. Kodesch.

Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued

the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Also on the brief

were Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin

Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Flynn, Chief Justice, and Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog,

Bushong, James, and Masih, Justices.**

BUSHONG, J.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

______________

* 25 OTR 58 (2022)

** Balmer, Senior Judge, Justice pro tempore, participated in oral argument,

but did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 385

386 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

BUSHONG, J.

In this appeal from a judgment of the Oregon Tax

Court, we must decide whether the Oregon Department of

Revenue erred in declining to reduce the assessed value of

taxpayer’s property for tax years 2018-19 and 2019-20. After

persuading the department that the valuation methodology

that it had used to assess taxpayer’s property in 2020-21

had been flawed, taxpayer asked the department to use that

corrected methodology to also reduce the assessed value of

its property for the two previous tax years. The department

denied that request, concluding that the statute on which

taxpayer relied, ORS 306.115—which grants the depart-

ment general supervisory authority over Oregon’s property

tax system—did not authorize the department to change its

valuation opinion for the earlier tax years because another

statute, ORS 308.624(4), expressly precluded the department

from making that change. On appeal, the Tax Court agreed

with the department, concluding that ORS 308.624(4) pre-

cluded the department from exercising its general authority

under ORS 306.115 to reduce the assessed value of taxpayer’s

property for those earlier years. D.E. Shaw Renewable

Investments, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 25 OTR 58 (2022).

Taxpayer contends on appeal to this court that the

department and the Tax Court misinterpreted the appli-

cable statutes. We disagree, and therefore affirm the Tax

Court’s judgment.

I. LEGAL OVERVIEW

An overview of the legal framework governing

Oregon’s system of valuing property for tax purposes will aid

in understanding the statutory interpretation issues raised

by taxpayer’s appeal. We begin with that overview before

turning to the specific arguments presented on appeal.

Under Oregon’s property tax system, most property

is assessed locally by county tax assessors. ORS 308.210

(assessor shall assess all taxable property within the

county); see DISH Network Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 364 Or

254, 257, 434 P3d 379 (2019). However, the department itself

assesses certain property—generally, property used to pro-

vide transportation, telecommunication, utilities, and other

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 387

services—through a process known as “central assessment.”

See ORS 308.515(1) (describing property subject to central

assessment, based in part on the property being held or used

by a company in performing or maintaining certain listed

business or services, or in the selling of listed commodities);

Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 289-90, 337 P3d

768 (2014) (explaining that central assessment was devised

to address problem of accurately valuing property used by

a business when the property of the business is located in

more than one taxing district).

For centrally assessed property, the department

determines the value of the property that is to be taxed, allo-

cates the tax-assessed value to the state, and then apportions

that value among the counties where the property is located.

See ORS 308.550 (department allocates value to Oregon);

ORS 308.565 (department apportions value to counties).

A taxpayer who owns property subject to central

assessment must file an annual financial statement that

helps the department determine the assessed value of the

property. See ORS 308.524 (requiring annual statement);

ORS 308.525 (describing information that must be included

in annual statement); ORS 308.545 (describing mode of deter-

mining assessed value of taxpayer’s property). After receiv-

ing the annual statements, the department determines the

value of all property subject to central assessment, prepares

a tentative central assessment tax roll, and sends notices

of the tentative assessment to each centrally assessed tax-

payer. See ORS 308.585 (department shall prepare tentative

central assessment roll); ORS 308.582 (department shall

send notice of tentative assessment to taxpayer).

Upon receiving notice of a tentative assessment for

centrally assessed property, a taxpayer may challenge the

tentative assessment by requesting, on or before June 15

of the assessment year, a conference with the department’s

director. ORS 308.584(1), (2). The director is required to

hold a conference with the taxpayer if requested and, ulti-

mately, must issue an order on or before August 1 modify-

ing or affirming the tentative assessment. ORS 308.584(3).

ORS 308.590(1)(a) requires the director to “[r]eview, exam-

ine and correct” the tentative assessment roll for that tax

388 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

year, though the director may not increase the value of any

property without first notifying the taxpayer. ORS 308.595.

The department then certifies the roll and apportions the

value between the counties. ORS 308.621(2). Once the roll

is certified, the assessments are final and property taxes

are collected by the county tax collector in the same manner

as property subject to local assessment. ORS 308.540 (when

central assessment roll is final); ORS 308.621(2), (4) (certifi-

cation, apportionment, and collection).

After the central assessment roll is certified for

a tax year, the director’s ability to correct errors or make

changes in the valuation and taxation of centrally assessed

property is more limited. See, e.g., ORS 308.624(1), (5) (direc-

tor may correct clerical errors after roll is certified for any

prior year that does not exceed five years); ORS 308.628

(director may add omitted property after roll is certified for

any prior year that does not exceed five years). As relevant

here, ORS 308.624 provides in subsection (3) that the direc-

tor may correct clerical and other errors in a certified cen-

tral assessment roll, and subsection (5) authorizes making

such corrections for up to five years after the last roll was

certified. But, notably, subsection (4) of that statute prohib-

its the director from correcting an error in “valuation judg-

ment,” as follows: “For purposes of this section, the director

may not correct an error in valuation judgment that is an

error in the department’s opinion of the value of property.”

ORS 308.624(4).

In addition to the central assessment process

described in ORS 308.505 through 308.674 summarized

above, another statute, ORS 306.115(1), provides that the

department “shall exercise general supervision and control

over the system of property taxation throughout the state.”1

That includes the authority to “do any act or give any order

* * * that the department deems necessary” in administer-

ing the property tax laws so that all properties are taxed

“according to the statutes * * * of the State of Oregon.”

ORS 306.115(1). Among other things, subsection (1) of ORS

1

ORS 306.115 was last amended by the legislature in 1997, and ORS 308.624

was last amended in 2008. All references to those statutes are to the current ver-

sions except where otherwise stated.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 389

306.115 provides that the department “may order the correc-

tion of clerical errors, errors in valuation or the correction of

any other kind of error or omission in an assessment or tax

roll” subject to the provisions in subsections (2) through (4).

Subsection (2) of ORS 306.115 authorizes the depart-

ment to order a change or correction to the assessment for

the current tax year for property “of the same class or in the

same area,” while subsection (3) authorizes the department

to correct a “separate assessment” of a taxpayer’s property

for the current tax year or for either of the two preceding

tax years.2 That “separate assessment” is warranted if the

department “discovers reason to correct the roll which, in its

discretion, it deems necessary to conform the roll to applica-

ble law.” ORS 306.115(3).

As discussed below, the purported conflict between

the department’s broad authority under ORS 306.115 to cor-

rect valuation errors in general and its more limited author-

ity under ORS 308.624 to correct errors or change past

determinations of the value of centrally assessed property is

at the heart of the statutory interpretation issue presented

in this case. Before turning to that issue, we briefly summa-

rize the facts and proceedings below.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Taxpayer, a limited liability company, operates

electricity-generating windmills in Malheur and Baker

counties.3 Taxpayer’s property is centrally assessed by the

department under ORS 308.505 through 308.674. For the

two tax years at issue in this case, 2018-19 and 2019-20,

2

The term “separate assessment of property” used in subsection (3) of ORS

306.115 distinguishes the assessment of an individual taxpayer’s property under

subsection (3)—which can be changed going back two years from the current

tax year—from the assessment of all property of the same class or in the same

area, which under subsection (2) can only be changed for the current tax year.

For further discussion of the meaning of that phrase, see Gray v. Dept. of Rev., 23

OTR 220, 228 (2018) (stating that the legislature uses the term “separate assess-

ment of property” in the tax laws to distinguish between the assessment of “a

discrete item of property” and “an entire class or grouping of property” (emphasis

in original)).

3

This case involves multiple appellants—all limited liability companies that

collectively own the subject property, which the department assesses in the name

of taxpayer D.E. Shaw Renewable Investments, LLC. For ease of reference, we

refer to that single taxpayer in this opinion.

390 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

taxpayer did not file the financial statements required by

ORS 308.524. Each year, the department gave taxpayer

notice of its tentative assessment as required by ORS

308.582. Taxpayer did not request a conference pursuant

to ORS 308.584 with respect to either tentative assessment

within the time permitted, so those tentative assessments

became final.

The valuation reduction requested in this case fol-

lowed from the events of the next tax year, 2020-21, when tax-

payer filed the required financial statement and requested a

conference with the director after receiving notice of the ten-

tative assessment. At that conference, taxpayer explained

that the department had overestimated the projected reve-

nue generated by energy sales from taxpayer’s windfarms

and underestimated the projected expenses.4 The director

agreed to change the inputs for estimating projected revenue

and expenses, thereby reducing the assessed value of tax-

payer’s property for tax year 2020-21 by nearly $18 million.5

Taxpayer then asked the department to make

similar reductions to the tax-assessed value of taxpayer’s

property for the two previous tax years—tax years 2018-19

and 2019-20. In making that request, taxpayer cited ORS

306.115, which, as noted above, authorizes the department

to make corrections—in its discretion—going back two years

from the current tax year. ORS 306.115(3). The department

denied taxpayer’s request, explaining that, although tax-

payer had requested relief for those two prior tax years under

ORS 306.115, the department had “properly considered” the

request to be governed by ORS 308.624. The department fur-

ther explained that, because taxpayer’s request had been to

correct an error in the department’s opinion of the value of

centrally assessed property, subsection (4) of ORS 308.624

precluded it from correcting the department’s past valuation

opinion.

4

Taxpayer contended that an “income approach” that relied on a blend of

“peak” and “off-peak” rates under projected electricity sales contracts would

result in a more accurate estimate of the income generated by the property.

Taxpayer also explained that the projected expenses should have been higher

than the department had estimated.

5

Taxpayer proposed reducing its real market and assessed values for 2020-21

from $86,485,000 to $60,000,000. The department granted a reduction to

$68,766,000.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 391

Taxpayer appealed that decision to the Oregon Tax

Court. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judg-

ment, framing the issue as whether the department’s super-

visory authority under ORS 306.115 authorized it to correct

an error in valuation judgment for centrally assessed prop-

erty notwithstanding the limitation in ORS 308.624(4). The

Tax Court denied taxpayer’s motion and granted the depart-

ment’s cross-motion, concluding that, although ORS 306.115

might authorize owners of centrally assessed property to

seek relief, ORS 308.624(4) precluded the department from

granting the specific relief that taxpayer had requested.

Taxpayer appealed to this court.

III. ANALYSIS

As framed by the Tax Court and the parties, this

case presents an issue of statutory interpretation.6 We

review the Tax Court’s interpretation of the relevant stat-

utes for errors of law. ORS 305.445. We apply our traditional

methodology in interpreting the statutes. See, e.g., State v.

Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (court gives

primary weight to statutory text in context, with appropri-

ate additional weight accorded to any relevant legislative

history); PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606,

611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (context includes other provisions

of the same statute and other related statutes).

Also, as relevant in this case, when we are asked to

resolve an apparent conflict between two statutes, we must

attempt to construe the statutes in a manner that will give

effect to both. ORS 174.010; see Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or

432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008). To the extent that two statutes

cannot be harmonized, a more specific and later-enacted

statute will control over a general earlier-enacted statute.

See ORS 174.020(2); Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 334

Or 367, 374, 50 P3d 1163 (2002); Balzer Mch. v. Klineline

Sand & Grav., 271 Or 596, 601, 533 P2d 321 (1975).

6

This case comes to us on appeal of the Tax Court’s decision on summary

judgment. In general, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no gen-

uine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. See TCR 47 C (standard for granting summary judgment in the

Tax Court); Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 354 Or 531, 316 P3d 276 (2013) (apply-

ing summary judgment standard). Here, there are no factual issues in dispute;

the only issue is whether the Tax Court erred in construing the statutes.

392 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

Before analyzing the relevant statutes, we briefly

summarize the parties’ arguments.

A. Parties’ Arguments

As noted, the department has authority under

ORS 306.115 to correct an erroneous assessment, and

that authority includes the authority to “order the correc-

tion of * * * errors in valuation.” ORS 306.115(1). As in the

Tax Court, taxpayer contends that that authority permits

the department to make changes to the value of centrally

assessed property in prior years—such as the requested

corrections for tax years 2018-19 and 2019-20 at issue

here—notwithstanding the prohibition in ORS 308.624(4)

against correcting “an error in the department’s opinion

of the value of property” for centrally assessed property

after the roll is certified. Taxpayer does not dispute that its

request is to correct an error in the department’s opinion of

the value of centrally assessed property within the mean-

ing of ORS 308.624(4). Instead, taxpayer contends that,

because it requested a correction under ORS 306.115—not

under ORS 308.624—the limitation in ORS 308.624(4) does

not apply.

In response to that argument, the department con-

tends that ORS 308.624 applies to any correction to centrally

assessed property after the roll is certified and, therefore,

subsection (4) of that statute precludes it from making the

requested corrections in valuation judgment. According to

the department, ORS 306.115 applies only to locally assessed

property. Alternatively, the department contends that, even

if ORS 306.115 applies to centrally assessed property, that

statute authorizes it to make only those corrections that are

otherwise authorized by law and changing the department’s

prior opinion of the value of centrally assessed property

would not “conform the roll to applicable law” because it is

prohibited by ORS 308.624(4). To the extent that the stat-

utes conflict, the department contends that the more specific

statute, ORS 308.624(4), controls over the more general stat-

ute, ORS 306.115.

We begin by examining the text and context of each

statute.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 393

B. Text and Context

ORS 306.115 provides, in part:

“(1) The department shall exercise general supervision

and control over the system of property taxation through-

out the state. The department may do any act or give any

order to any public officer or employee that the department

deems necessary in the administration of the property tax

laws so that all properties are taxed or are exempted from

taxation according to the statutes and Constitutions of the

State of Oregon and of the United States. Among other acts

or orders deemed necessary by the department in exercis-

ing its supervisory powers, the department may order the

correction of clerical errors, errors in valuation or the cor-

rection of any other kind of error or omission in an assess-

ment or tax roll as provided under subsections (2) to (4) of

this section.

“* * * * *

“(3) The department may order a change or correc-

tion applicable to a separate assessment of property to

the assessment or tax roll for the current tax year and for

either of the two tax years immediately preceding the cur-

rent tax year if for the year to which the change or correc-

tion is applicable the department discovers reason to correct

the roll which, in its discretion, it deems necessary to con-

form the roll to applicable law without regard to any failure

to exercise a right of appeal.”

(Emphases added.) The text of ORS 306.115 suggests, at

least preliminarily, that, when the legislature granted the

department broad authority over the property tax system

under that provision, it intended that the department’s

authority would be subject to limitations provided in other

statutes. Although subsection (1) does not differentiate

between locally assessed and centrally assessed property,7

7

Subsection (1) authorizes a correction in “an assessment or tax roll.” The

phrase “an assessment or tax roll” includes all taxable property regardless of

whether it is assessed locally by a county tax assessor or centrally by the depart-

ment. See Boardman Acquisition, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 361 Or 440, 447-48, 393

P3d 1147 (2017) (“the assessment and tax roll” means a full and complete record of

the assessment of taxable property as of January 1 of the assessment year); ORS

308.540 (referring to the central assessment roll prepared by the department as

an “assessment roll”); ORS 308.560 (same); see also Lake Oswego Preservation

Society v. City of Lake Oswego, 360 Or 115, 379 P3d 462 (2016) (“an” may be used

synonymously with “any” or as an indefinite article).

394 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

two provisions in the text suggest that the broad grant of

authority set out in subsection (1) is subject to limitations

provided in other statutes, as discussed next.

First, the stated purpose of giving the department

“general supervision and control” over Oregon’s property

tax system is to ensure that “all properties are taxed or are

exempted from taxation according to the statutes * * * of the

State of Oregon[.]” ORS 306.115(1). Second, correcting any

“errors in valuation” under subsection (1) must be accom-

plished “as provided under subsections (2) to (4)” of ORS

306.115. One of those referenced subsections, subsection (3),

provides that the department can, in its discretion, make

corrections that it “deems necessary to conform the roll to

applicable law[.]”

Thus, the text of both subsections (1) and (3) of

ORS 306.115 expressly refers to other applicable laws

when describing the extent of the department’s supervisory

authority, including its authority to order the correction

of an error in valuation. Even without that reference, the

legislature could enact subsequent legislation to limit the

department’s existing authority under ORS 306.115. But

the references here further confirm, at least preliminarily,

that the provisions of ORS 308.624—enacted 24 years after

the current version of ORS 306.115 was enacted, as noted

below—might control when the department is asked to cor-

rect an error regarding centrally assessed property.8

8

The enactment history of ORS 306.115—part of its context, State ex rel

OHSU v. Haas, 325 Or 492, 505, 942 P2d 261 (1997)—is not particularly helpful.

ORS 306.115 traces back to 1929, when the legislature granted the state tax

commission (the department’s predecessor) the authority to “direct and to order

any county board of equalization [later a county board of property tax appeals]

to raise or lower the valuation of any taxable property and to add property to the

assessment list.” Or Laws 1929, ch 465, § 3. That authority was later incorporated

into three separate statutes. See former ORS 305.090 (1981), repealed by Or Laws

1983, ch 605, § 6; former ORS 306.111 (1981), repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 605,

§ 6; ORS 311.205 (1981), amended by Or Laws 1983, ch 605, § 5. In 1983, however,

the legislature combined those three statutes into ORS 306.115. Or Laws 1983,

ch 605, §§ 1, 5-6 (enacting ORS 306.115, amending ORS 311.205 and repealing

ORS 305.090 and ORS 306.111). The text of the 1983 version of ORS 306.115 is

the same as the current version, except that the 1983 version provided that the

department could correct a separate assessment of property only if the assessor

or the taxpayer demonstrated “good and sufficient cause” for failing to exercise

“the statutory right of appeal.” ORS 306.115(3)(a) (1983). The “good and sufficient

cause” requirement was removed from ORS 306.115(3) in 1997 and placed within

ORS 305.288. See Gray, 23 OTR at 245-46 (tracing changes to ORS 306.115 and

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 395

We turn to the text of ORS 308.624. ORS 308.624

provides, in pertinent part:

“(1) Following the date that an assessment roll pre-

pared under ORS 308.505 to 308.674 is certified under

ORS 308.621, the Director of the Department of Revenue

may correct a clerical error, or an error or omission in the

certified roll, as prescribed in this section.

“* * * * *

“(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section,

the director may correct any other error or omission of any

kind, including, but not limited to:

“(a) The elimination of the assessment to one person

or company of property owned or used by another person or

company on the assessment date;

“(b) The correction of a value changed on appeal;

“(c) The correction of an error in the assessed value of

property resulting from an error in the identification of a

unit of property;

“(d) An error in apportionment of assessments on the

roll; and

“(e) An error in the ratio of average maximum assessed

value to average real market value determined under ORS

308.153.

“(4) For purposes of this section, the director may not

correct an error in valuation judgment that is an error in

the department’s opinion of the value of property.

“(5) Corrections may be made under this section to the

roll last certified, or to the certified roll for any prior year

that does not exceed five years prior to the year for which

the last roll was certified under ORS 308.621.”

Subsection (1) states at the outset that it applies “[f]ollow-

ing the date that an assessment roll prepared under ORS

308.505 to 308.674 is certified under ORS 308.621”—in

other words, after the roll for centrally assessed property

becomes final. Next, subsection (1) states that the director

noting that, in 1997, the legislature vested the Magistrate Division of the Tax

Court with authority to hear certain types of cases that formerly had been heard

by the department under ORS 306.115 and former ORS 306.116 (1995), renum-

bered as ORS 305.288 (1997)).

396 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

“may correct a clerical error,9 or an error or omission in the

certified roll, as prescribed in” ORS 308.624. Using a per-

missive term—“may”—instead of “shall” suggests that the

director has discretion to make the specified corrections, not

that making those corrections is required by law. Nibler v.

Dept. of Transportation, 338 Or 19, 26, 105 P3d 360 (2005)

(“may” ordinarily denotes permission or the authority to do

something).

Subsection (3) describes the types of errors or omis-

sions—other than clerical—that the director “may correct,”

stating that the director may correct “any other error or

omission of any kind, including but not limited to” the five

types of errors described in paragraphs (3)(a) through (e). One

of those types of errors—specified in paragraph (3)(b)—

is the “correction of a value changed on appeal.” ORS

308.624(3)(b). But importantly, subsection (3) states that the

director’s authority under that subsection is limited by sub-

section (4): “Except as provided in subsection (4) of this sec-

tion, the director may correct” the listed errors or omissions.

Subsection (4), in turn, states, “For purposes of this section,

the director may not correct an error in valuation judgment

that is an error in the department’s opinion of the value of

property.”

Reading subsection (4) together with subsection (3),

two points are readily apparent from the text alone. First,

the director may correct a valuation error in centrally

assessed property that is “changed on appeal” under para-

graph (3)(b); however, under subsection (4), the director

may not correct a valuation error that is “an error in the

department’s opinion,” that is, a valuation that has not been

“changed on appeal.”10 Second, because the director’s cor-

rection authority set out in subsection (3) applies to any”

error or omission of any kind”—including but not limited to

the types of errors described in paragraphs (3)(a) through

9

There is no contention in this case that taxpayer’s request was to correct a

“clerical error.” See ORS 308.624(2) (defining term).

10

ORS 308.624(3)(b) authorizes valuation changes made as a consequence of

an appeal to the Oregon Tax Court. Because an appeal to the Tax Court happens

after the director completes a review and the department certifies the roll, ORS

308.621(2), any correction to value made after an appeal to the Tax Court under

ORS 308.584(5) would necessarily be made after the roll is already certified.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 397

(e)—the opening clause of subsection (4)—“[f]or purposes

of this section”—clarifies that the director’s broad author-

ity to correct “any * * * error” in subsection (3) is limited by

subsection (4). In other words, the authority granted to the

director to correct “any * * * error” excludes the authority to

correct “an error in the department’s opinion of the value of

the property.”

Stepping back from the specific provisions in ORS

308.624 to examine the context of that statute, we note two

points. First, the legislature enacted ORS 308.624 more

than two decades after the legislature combined three

existing statutes into ORS 306.115. See Or Laws 2007,

ch 616, § 7 (enacting ORS 308.624); Or Laws 1983, ch 605,

§§ 1, 5-6 (enacting ORS 306.115, amending ORS 311.205

and repealing former ORS 305.090 (1981) and former ORS

306.111 (1981). Second, because ORS 308.624 applies only

to centrally assessed property and only after the roll has

been certified, it is more narrowly drawn than ORS 306.115,

which applies to Oregon’s property tax system in its entirety.

That suggests, again at least preliminarily, that the legisla-

ture may have intended for the more specific, later-enacted

statute to govern valuation changes in centrally assessed

property.

Taxpayer contends that the preliminary clause of

subsection (4) of ORS 308.624—“[f]or purposes of this sec-

tion”—shows that the legislature intended for ORS 308.624

to apply only when the taxpayer asks the director to exercise

its authority to correct a valuation error pursuant to ORS

308.624. Taxpayer reasons that, because it requested a cor-

rection under ORS 306.115—not under ORS 308.624—the

limitation in subsection (4) of ORS 308.624 does not apply.

In support of that contention, taxpayer points out that ORS

308.624 authorizes the director to correct errors going back

five years from the last certified tax roll; by contrast, ORS

306.115(3) allows the department to go back only two years.

That difference, taxpayer contends, shows that the legis-

lature intended to provide two separate pathways for tax-

payers who own centrally assessed property to seek relief.

We disagree with that textual argument. Although

we agree that the two statutes specify different “look-back”

398 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

periods (five years in ORS 308.624(5), compared to two years

in ORS 306.115(3)), it is likely that the legislature intended

the different look-back periods to apply to different types

of corrections or for different types of property, instead of

providing two separate pathways by which a taxpayer who

owns centrally assessed property may request a correction

in the valuation of that property.

Taxpayer’s interpretation would mean that the out-

come would depend not on the substantive provisions of law

that apply to the taxation of centrally assessed property, but

on the terms of a taxpayer’s request. We think it unlikely

that the legislature would have intended to authorize relief

for those taxpayers sophisticated enough to request correc-

tion of a valuation judgment under ORS 306.115 but deny

relief to a similarly situated taxpayer requesting such a

correction under ORS 308.624. Indeed, if taxpayer’s inter-

pretation of ORS 308.624(4) is correct, the limitation set

out in that statute would be rendered meaningless for the

first two years of the look-back period because all taxpayers

could avoid that limitation by requesting relief under ORS

306.115. Again, based on the text, it strikes us as unlikely

that the legislature would have intended to specify a limita-

tion on correcting past valuation errors in ORS 308.624(4),

only to allow taxpayers to circumvent that limitation by

invoking ORS 306.115.

Taxpayer cites another statute, ORS 311.205, as

important context for its interpretation of ORS 308.624.

ORS 311.205 authorizes the local assessment official to cor-

rect clerical and other errors in local property tax assess-

ments and tax rolls.11 Taxpayer characterizes ORS 308.624

as the central assessment “corollary” of ORS 311.205, and

11

ORS 311.205(1)(b) authorizes the local assessment official to change its

opinion of the value of locally assessed property for prior tax years if the change

is the result of an appeal to the Tax Court. That statute provides, in part:

“(A) The officer [in charge of the roll] may correct an error in valuation

judgment at any time in any account when an appeal has been filed in the tax

court alleging that the value on the roll is incorrect, if the correction results

in the reduction in a tax owed on the account.

“* * * * *

“(D) For purposes of this paragraph, an error in valuation judgment is

one in which the assessor or the department would arrive at a different opin-

ion of value.”

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 399

notes that the Tax Court and this court have addressed the

merits of petitions invoking the department’s supervisory

authority under ORS 306.115 to correct valuation errors for

locally assessed property in prior tax years without address-

ing the limitation on correcting errors in valuation judgment

in ORS 311.205(1)(b)(A) and (D). See Oakmont, LLC v. Dept.

of Rev., 359 Or 779, 377 P3d 523 (2016) (concluding that the

department had authority under ORS 306.115 to consider

locally assessed taxpayer’s petition to correct valuation);

Willamette Estates II, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 357 Or 113, 346

P3d 1207 (2015) (holding that assessor could properly peti-

tion the department under ORS 306.115 to correct errors

in valuing taxpayer’s land). Thus, taxpayer reasons, ORS

306.115 must provide an independent pathway for taxpayers

owning centrally assessed property to seek relief despite the

limitation in ORS 308.624(4), just as it provides a pathway

for taxpayers owning locally assessed property to seek relief

despite the limitation in ORS 311.205(1)(b).

We disagree with that reasoning. Although the stat-

utes are parallel in some respects, there are some important

textual differences. ORS 311.205 prohibits the local assess-

ment official from independently correcting errors in valu-

ation judgment. Clackamas Cty Assessor v. Village at Main

St. Phase II, 349 Or 330, 332, 245 P3d 81 (2010) (“Once 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.’ ” (Quoting

ORS 311.205(1)(b) (2005) (brackets in Village at Main St.

Phase II).)). Although the local assessment official’s author-

ity is limited, the department’s authority is not. Paragraph

(1)(d) of ORS 311.205 expressly requires the local officer

in charge of the tax roll to “make any change ordered by

the * * * department under ORS 305.288 or ORS 306.115.”

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the text of ORS 311.205 shows

that the legislature intended to authorize the department to

exercise its supervisory authority over the state’s property

tax system under ORS 306.115 to order corrections to local

tax rolls that a local assessment official is not authorized to

make.

400 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

By contrast, the prohibition in ORS 308.624(4) applies

directly to the director and contains no reference to the depart-

ment’s supervisory authority over the property tax system in

ORS 306.115. Compare ORS 311.205(1)(d) (assessment offi-

cial “shall make any change ordered by * * * the department

under * * * ORS 306.115”), with ORS 308.624(4) (prohibiting

the director from correcting errors in valuation judgment).

The absence of any reference to ORS 306.115 in ORS 308.624

makes sense because, although the department might need

to exercise its supervisory authority over local assessment

officials to ensure that they are complying with the law, the

department does not need to exercise supervisory authority

over itself. The department itself is acting as the assessor

for centrally assessed property; the prohibition on correcting

errors in valuation judgment in ORS 308.624(4) thus parallels

the prohibition on local assessment officials correcting errors

in valuation judgment in ORS 311.205. The fact that the leg-

islature authorized the department to exercise its supervi-

sory authority to correct errors in valuation judgment by local

assessment officials in ORS 311.205 does not mean that the

legislature intended to authorize the department to exercise

authority under ORS 306.115 to change the department’s own

opinion of the value of taxpayer’s centrally assessed property

after the central assessment tax roll is certified.

We turn to the legislative history to see whether it

sheds any additional light on the legislature’s intent.

C. Legislative History

The legislative history of ORS 306.115 is not help-

ful on the issue presented in this case—the legislature was

primarily concerned with local assessment—and nothing is

added by a detailed discussion.12 We turn, then, to the legis-

lative history of ORS 308.624.

12

The legislative history of ORS 306.115 reveals that the legislature’s pri-

mary goal in combining three earlier statutes into ORS 306.115 by enacting

Senate Bill (SB) 68 (1983) was to prevent locally assessed taxpayers from circum-

venting the local review process. Tape Recording, House Committee on Revenue

and School Finance, SB 68, July 6, 1983, Tape 333, Side A (statement of Larry

Dixon, Department of Revenue); Staff Measure Analysis, Senate Committee on

Revenue, SB 68, July 6, 1983; see generally Sandahl v. Dept. of Rev., 9 OTR 251

(1982) (holding that the taxpayer was permitted to appeal to Tax Court not-

withstanding his failure to first pursue the local review process). The legisla-

tive history includes only one purported mention of property subject to central

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 401

The department originally proposed ORS 308.624

as section 7 of House Bill (HB) 2239 (2007), as part of the

department’s effort to clarify procedures for reviewing and

correcting its central assessment rolls. The department’s

representative, Phillips, explained during a public hearing

before the House Committee on Revenue that section 7 was

new and concerned changes made to historic or past rolls—

meaning changes in prior years after the tax rolls had been

certified—and that the goal was to make the process for cor-

recting centrally assessed rolls for prior tax years parallel to

the existing process in ORS 311.205 for correcting errors in

the local assessment rolls for prior years. Audio Recording,

House Committee on Revenue, HB 2239, Feb 6, 2007, at

23:30 (statement of John Phillips, Department of Revenue),

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Sept 27, 2023).

Phillips went on to explain that, in addition to clerical errors,

ORS 308.624 permits the director to correct “other kinds of

errors,” including value when an appeal has been filed with

the Oregon Tax Court. Audio Recording, House Committee

on Revenue, HB 2239, Feb 6, 2007, at 24:20, https://olis.ore-

gonlegislature.gov (accessed Sept 27, 2023). In response to a

question from Chair Barnhart regarding whether that sec-

tion would give the department new authority or responsi-

bility, Phillips stated:

“Mr. Chair it’s an attempt to simply flesh out and restate

what already exists. We found that in the confusion between

the kinds of rolls that are being corrected, that we kept and

like a couple of years ago we added some provisions to flesh

this out a little bit but it still was in the wrong section * * *.”

Audio Recording, House Committee on Revenue , HB 2239,

Feb 6, 2007, at 24:50, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov

(accessed Sept 27, 2023).

From Phillips’s statement that the bill merely

“restate[d] what already exists,” taxpayer reasons that,

because the department did not have any other authority

assessment, which is not included in the archival record, but was in a transcript

provided by the department’s counsel from their files: At one legislative commit-

tee hearing, a legislator reportedly asked whether the bill had been introduced

to “deal with the situations arising out of utilities challenging the assessed val-

ues.” The department’s representative at that hearing responded that he “[didn’t]

believe it [was].”

402 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

before 2007 to correct centrally assessed property tax rolls

for prior years, it must have had the existing authority to do

so under ORS 306.115. And because the 2007 legislation was

intended to make procedural or housekeeping changes—not

substantive changes—to existing law, the legislation did

not change the department’s existing authority under ORS

306.115. That is one way to understand the legislative his-

tory, but not the only way.

Taxpayer’s argument assumes that the department

in fact had authority before 2007 to correct centrally assessed

tax rolls for prior years.13 But the suggestion by Phillips that

section 7 only restated “what already exists” seems incor-

rect. Before 2007, the central assessment statutes did not

expressly authorize the department to make corrections

outside of the annual director’s review and conference pro-

cess for the current tax year, see generally ORS 308.505

through 308.665 (2005), and the Tax Court had interpreted

ORS 308.590 to preclude the department from correcting

centrally assessed tax rolls for prior tax years, see PUD No.

1 of Snohomish County v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 290, 297-99

(2004) (concluding that ORS 308.590 did not authorize ret-

rospective corrections to a certified central assessment roll

because the text authorizing the department to make cor-

rections referred only to the tentative roll prepared during

the present tax year, not to rolls that had been certified in

prior years).14 Therefore, by authorizing the department to

13

Taxpayer contends that its interpretation is supported by our decision in

Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 347 Or 536, 226 P3d 28 (2010). In

that case, the taxpayer challenged the department’s failure to apply the business

inventory exemption statute, ORS 307.400, to its centrally assessed property.

We noted that the taxpayer had petitioned for relief for tax years prior to 2007

“pursuant to ORS 306.115[,]” id. at 541, and both the Tax Court and this court

addressed the merits of the taxpayer’s claim. However, the department’s conten-

tion in that case was that the exemption in ORS 307.400 did not apply to centrally

assessed property; the department did not contend that ORS 306.115 did not

authorize it to grant relief. Because the source of the department’s authority to

consider the merits of the taxpayer’s claim to an exemption was not at issue, our

decision in Northwest Natural Gas Co. does not stand for the proposition that,

before 2007, ORS 306.115 authorized the department to grant relief for prior tax

years for all centrally assessed property. See Parks v. Farmers Ins. Co., 347 Or

374, 384, 227 P3d 1127 (2009) (noting that the court’s silence “simply reflects

that, heretofore, this court has had no reason to consider the issue”).

14

The issue in PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County was whether the depart-

ment had any authority to increase a centrally assessed taxpayer’s property taxes

for prior years by including property that had been omitted from the original

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 403

correct, in some circumstances, the centrally assessed tax

roll certified in prior years, section 7 of HB 2239 expanded

the department’s existing authority. We assume the legisla-

ture had a correct understanding of existing law.15

Moreover, it is not clear that the 2007 legislation

was intended to make only nonsubstantive changes to the

law. Although Phillips’s testimony is somewhat ambiguous,

he did state that HB 2239 was “an attempt to flesh out”

the department’s existing authority. Thus, another way to

understand that testimony is that the department’s author-

ity to correct centrally assessed tax rolls for the current tax

year “already exists,” and giving the department the addi-

tional authority to correct those rolls for prior years under

some circumstances was part of the effort to “flesh out” the

existing authority.

The legislative history also includes some discussion

about the initial clause of what became ORS 308.624(4)—

the “[f]or purposes of this section” clause—that taxpayer

contends is significant. As originally proposed, that clause

was contained in the second sentence of subsection (4), not

the first:

“The director may not correct an error in valuation

judgment. For purposes of this section, an error in valua-

tion judgment is an error in the department’s opinion of the

value of property.”

HB 2239 (2007), § 7(4) (introduced bill) (emphasis added).

The location of that clause was moved at the

department’s request. See Exhibit 13, House Committee

on Revenue, HB 2239, Feb 6, 2007 (letter of John Phillips,

Department of Revenue). The department’s letter request

suggested moving that clause to the beginning of the first

sentence, because, as originally introduced, the provision

assessment. The Tax Court held that, before the law governing “omitted property”

was amended by Or Laws 2003, ch 31, § 1, the department “did not have authority

to make retrospective omitted property assessments of centrally assessed prop-

erty.” PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County, 17 OTR at 303.

15

As there is no evidence the legislature had relied on Phillips’s misstate-

ment, it is not entitled to any weight. See State v. Stark, 354 Or 1, 15 n 9, 307 P3d

418 (2013) (“We assume that the legislature had a correct understanding of the

existing law, and the legislative history does not establish that the legislature

relied on [a witness’s] misstatement.”).

404 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

“could be interpreted to limit the director’s authority under

a totally separate statute and chapter.” The “dash one”

amendments to House Bill 2239 incorporated the depart-

ment’s requested amendment:

“For purposes of this section, the director may not cor-

rect an error in valuation judgment that is an error in the

department’s opinion of the value of property.”

HB 2239 (2007), -1 amendments (Feb 23, 2007).

Taxpayer understands that change to be signifi-

cant. Taxpayer contends that the “totally separate statute

and chapter” mentioned in the department’s letter was a

reference to ORS 306.115. According to taxpayer, that ref-

erence confirms that (1) the department believed that it

already had authority under ORS 306.115 to correct valua-

tion errors in the tax rolls for centrally assessed property for

prior years; and (2) the “[f]or purposes of this section” clause

was moved to the first sentence to preserve that existing

authority. Again, we agree that the legislative history could

be read consistently with that understanding of the legisla-

ture’s intent, but we disagree that the legislative history is

conclusive in that respect, for several reasons.

First, the letter’s reference to a “totally separate

statute and chapter” does not mention ORS 306.115. Thus,

the letter could have been referring to the department’s

existing authority to correct valuation errors in the tax rolls

for centrally assessed property for the current tax year.

Moving the “[f]or purposes of this section” clause to the first

sentence would preserve that existing authority. Conversely,

leaving that clause in the second sentence as originally pro-

posed could have been interpreted to preclude the depart-

ment from making such a correction even in the current

tax year. Similarly, the reference to a “totally separate stat-

ute and chapter” could have been referring to the depart-

ment’s existing authority to correct valuation errors for

locally assessed property under ORS 311.205(1)(d). Again,

moving the preliminary clause to the first sentence would

preserve that existing authority, while leaving it in the sec-

ond sentence could have been interpreted to preclude the

department from correcting past valuation errors for locally

assessed property.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 405

Second, taxpayer’s argument again presumes that

the department thought it had the authority before the 2007

legislation to correct valuation errors in the tax rolls for

centrally assessed property for prior years, and that ORS

306.115 was the source of that existing authority. But tax-

payer’s presumption is flawed because, as noted above, the

Tax Court had determined that the department did not have

any authority before the 2007 legislation to correct the tax

rolls for centrally assessed property for prior tax years.

Finally, nothing in the later legislative discussions

about the amendment moving the “[f]or purposes of this sec-

tion” clause to the first sentence of subsection (4) supports

taxpayer’s argument regarding the significance of that

change.16 A subsequent discussion of that amendment char-

acterized the change as merely a clarifying rewrite. Audio

Recording, House Committee on Revenue, HB 2239, Feb 20,

2007, at 13:10 (testimony of Chair Barnhart, describing the

changes as a “rewrite” so that “the language works better”),

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Sept 27, 2023).17

In sum, nothing in the legislative history of ORS

308.624—including the history of the 2007 amendment to sub-

section (4)—clearly reveals an intent to authorize the depart-

ment to change its valuation opinion for prior years at a tax-

payer’s request when that relief is specifically precluded by

subsection (4).

Ultimately, the best evidence of the legislature’s

intent is the text of the statutes that the legislature enacted.

See Gaines, 346 Or at 173 (stating that, where “the text of a

statute is truly capable of having only one meaning, no weight

16

At a work session of the House Committee on Revenue, a representative

from the Legislative Revenue Office testified that the “[f]or purposes of this sec-

tion” clause was moved to the beginning of the first sentence to avoid “prohibiting

the department from correcting an error in the opinion of its value” and that the

amendment was needed “or the department would not have the ability any longer

to change its value.” Audio Recording, House Committee on Revenue, HB 2239,

Feb 20, 2007, at 11:35, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Sept 27, 2023).

17

The House Committee on Revenue adopted the amendment and voted to

pass the bill to the full House, which also passed it. The Senate also passed the

bill in that form, following a committee process that involved no significant dis-

cussion. Audio Recording, Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue, HB 2239,

May 22, 2007, at 23:22, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Sept 27, 2023).

Ultimately, then, the amendment to ORS 308.624 was enacted in what is now its

current form. Or Laws 2007, ch 616, § 7.

406 D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev.

can be given to legislative history that suggests—or even

confirms—that legislators intended something different”).

As explained earlier, the statutory text and context point to

the following conclusions: (1) in ORS 308.624(4), the legis-

lature intended to preclude the department from changing

its “opinion of value” of centrally assessed property for prior

tax years, except when a change is required by the results

of an appeal to the Tax Court; and (2) in ORS 306.115, the

legislature intended the department’s broad authority over

the state’s property tax system to be subject to limitations

provided in other, more specific statutes, including the lim-

itation subsequently adopted in ORS 308.624(4).18 Nothing

in the legislative history convinces us that the legislature

had a different intent when it enacted (and amended) those

statutes.

In short, the department’s general authority under

ORS 306.115(1) to correct errors in valuation must give way

to the specific prohibition in ORS 308.624(4). Any conflict

between the two statutes is reconcilable because nothing in

ORS 306.115 compels the director to correct errors in val-

uation in a certified central assessment roll. See Carlson v.

Myers, 327 Or 213, 226, 959 P2d 31 (1998) (this court avoids

interpreting statutes in a manner that would produce an

irreconcilable conflict). To the extent they conflict, the more

specific statute—ORS 308.624(4)—will control over the

more general. ORS 174.020(2); see Powers, 345 Or at 438 (so

noting).

Construing the statutes in a manner that gives

effect to each one, as required by ORS 174.010, means that

the department’s broad authority under ORS 306.115 is sub-

ject to limitations in other, more specific, statutes, includ-

ing ORS 308.624(4). Construing the broad grant of author-

ity under ORS 306.115 as an exception to the prohibition in

ORS 308.624(4) or an alternative pathway to obtain relief

that is expressly precluded by ORS 308.624(4) as taxpayer

contends would effectively nullify ORS 308.624(4)—at least

for the most recent two-year look back period—because the

18

Of course, the legislature that adopted ORS 306.115 in 1983 could not pre-

clude the 2007 legislature from limiting the scope of the department’s authority

under the earlier statute even if ORS 306.115 did not expressly reference other

statutes and applicable law.

Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 407

department’s authority under ORS 306.115 would always

supersede the prohibition contained in ORS 308.624(4).

Conversely, if the authority under ORS 306.115 is subject

to the limitations in ORS 308.624(4)—or, stated differently,

if ORS 308.624(4) is treated as an exception to the broad

authority granted under ORS 306.115—both statutes will

have the fullest legal effect. Such an interpretation would

preclude the department from relying on ORS 306.115 to

correct errors in valuation in a certified central assessment

roll for prior years, but its broad authority over the state

property tax system would remain intact.

Taxpayer is in the position of requesting relief under

ORS 306.115 for tax years 2018-19 and 2019-20 only because

it did not submit financial statements for those years as

required by ORS 308.524, and it did not request a confer-

ence with the director under ORS 308.584 to challenge the

department’s valuation opinion before the tentative assess-

ments for those years became final. We agree with the Tax

Court that ORS 308.624(4) precluded the department from

retroactively changing its opinion of the value of taxpayer’s

property in the certified central assessment rolls for those

earlier tax years.19

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that ORS

308.624(4) precludes the department from changing its

valuation of taxpayer’s centrally assessed property for tax

years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

19

Based on that conclusion, we need not decide whether ORS 306.115 only

applies to correcting valuation errors for locally assessed property, as the depart-

ment contends.