Case law

Rothenfluch v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 322 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 3, 1990

Liquid Air Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 159 (1979). … United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 165 US 463 , 17 S Ct 368 , 41 L Ed 789 (1897); United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 148 US 31 , 13 S Ct 458 , 37 L Ed 354 (1893).

Clapa v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 21, 2012

Jeffrey Brown (Brown), Real Property Appraiser, Multnomah County Oregon, Division of Assessment, Recording & Taxation, appeared on behalf of Defendant. … The Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals Order, dated March 4, 2011, determined a real market value of $165,340 for Account R175194.

Gugler v. Baker County Education Service District

10 Or. Tax 315 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 26, 1986

Where judgment must be exercised by the administrative board or body, the questioned decision must fall into the area of unreasonable before the court will overturn it. Rogue River Pack. v. … Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman, 58 Cal *327 2d 23, 372 P2d 649, 652 (1962), quoted in Dept. of Rev. v. Umatilla County, 10 OTR 309 (1986).

Thomas v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 333 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 27, 1968

Barnes, Sr. et al v. … Hamilton v. Adkins, supra.

Jones v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 237 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 11, 1992

T & R Service Inc. v. Commission, 3 OTR 271, 273 (1968). … Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine, 8 OTR 221, 225 (1979), aff’d *242 289 Or 909 , 618 P2d 960 (1980).

City of Woodburn v. Domogalla

1 Or. Tax 292 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 1963

It and one or two state boards of tax appeal, as well as Senator Musa’s personal background in administrative proceedings as a certified public accountant, were the influencing factors in the choice in 1949 of the board of … State ex rel Appling v. Chase, 224 Or 112, 116, 355 P2d 631 (1960). A court with less than general jurisdiction would be scarcely more than a substitute for a board of tax appeals.

Big Moose Development Inc. v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 11, 2013

Defendant was represented by Jeff Sanders (Sanders), Oregon Registered Appraiser III, and Jeff Brown (Brown), Residential Appeals Lead Appraiser, Multnomah County Assessor‟s office. … Plaintiff appealed the assessor‟s values to the Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals (Board) and the Board sustained the values.

CCP Crestview 1505 LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 28, 2024

The subject property’s 2021-22 tax roll real market value, sustained by the board of property tax appeals (board), was $10,561,070. (Compl at 3.) Its maximum assessed value and assessed value were each $7,435,440. … Rivers Edge, 359 Or at 827; see also Powell Street I, LLC v.

ABC Inc. and Combined Affiliates v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 8, 2025

See Lommasson v. School Dist. … See Con-Way, Inc. & Affiliates v.

Sweeney v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090313c (or.tax 6-30-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 30, 2009

Plaintiff did not appeal to the county board of property tax appeals (board) in 2006 because she was unaware of the appeal process until after the December 31, 2006, board petition deadline. … See Lee's v. Dept. of Rev. , TC 4830, WL 924976 *1 (Apr 6, 2009) (ruling that statutes do not permit taxpayers to appeal "their own actions in agreeing to values."). B.

Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine

8 Or. Tax 221 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 1979

See Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 314 , 365 P2d 89, 92 (1961); Rogue River Pack. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 293 (1976).) … State v. Jairl, 229 Or 533, 538-539 , 368 P2d 323, 325 (1962); Girt et al v. Tri-Met et al, 4 OTR 92, 95 (1970).

Taft Church of Evangelical Church of North America v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 119 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 28, 1997

See Freightliner Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 270 (1973). Here, the assessor added the property to the tax roll prospectively. … Taxpayer cites Skyline Assembly of God v. Dept. of Rev., 274 Or 259 , 545 P2d 879 (1976) and Worrell v. Dept. of Rev., 282 Or 531 , 579 P2d 858 (1978).

Mahler v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 367 · Oregon Tax Court · May 31, 1990

Defendant believes that plaintiff simply filed his petition to the board of equalization late. He was denied relief by the board and, in turn, by the defendant. … Rothenfluch v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 322 (1990). In this case, the taxpayer was not told that the promised notice would extend the time to appeal.

McCormick v. Department of Revenue

10 Or. Tax 380 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 27, 1987

In Frutiger v. … As recently as Olson v.

23rd & Flanders LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor

17 Or. Tax 438 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 4, 2003

The board is authorized to hear such cases. … See Dept. of Rev. v. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 15 OTR 284, 287 (2001) (referring to ORS 305.288 as one of two rescuing statutes that may aid a taxpayer that misses the board process).

BDC/Bend SPE, LLC v. Deschutes County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 11, 2023

See, e.g., Farmer’s Direct, Inc. v. … More recently, this court used a similar description in Huang v.

YU Contemporary, Inc. I v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 349 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 9, 2017

I v. Dept. of Rev. … The Board of Directors meets quarterly.

Kent v. Department of Revenue

9 Or. Tax 356 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 28, 1983

In Sniadach v. … Both Sniadach and Goldberg were cited in Brown v.

Winderlea Wine Co. v. Yamhill Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 110229n (or.tax 9-15-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 15, 2011

Plaintiff appealed to the county board of property tax appeals (board) and the board sustained the penalty. (Ptf's Compl at 2, Mar 28, 2011.) … Yamhill County Assessor and Dept. of Rev. , TC-MD No 041156B (Nov 16, 2005); Pacific Coast Investments v.

Sandahl v. Department of Revenue

9 Or. Tax 251 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 18, 1982

See Swenson v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 234, 238 (1975).) … The clerk of the court will consult with the parties to establish an acceptable date for trial in Oregon City, Oregon. 1 Portland Adventist Hospital v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 381, 386-389 (1980). 2 Domogalla et al. v.