IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax
JILL ANDERSON and JEFFREY GERRY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 130293N ) v. ) ) MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION
The court entered its Decision in the above-entitled matter on December 16, 2013. The
court did not receive a request for an award of costs and disbursements (TCR-MD 19) within 14
days after its Decision was entered. The court’s Final Decision incorporates its Decision without
change.
Plaintiffs appealed the real market value of property identified as Account R287114
(subject property) for the 2010-11 through 2012-13 tax years.1 A trial was held in the Oregon
Tax Courtroom on November 14, 2013. W. Scott Phinney, an Oregon licensed attorney,
appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Mona St. Clair (St. Clair), a realtor specializing in residential
property testified on behalf of Plaintiffs. Lindsay Kandra, Assistant County Counsel, appeared
on behalf of Defendant. Barry Dayton (Dayton), Registered Appraiser specializing in residential
property, testified on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1, 2 pages 2 through 13, and 3
were received without objection. Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 page 1 because it
was prepared by Plaintiffs’ counsel, not St. Clair, and the court excluded Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2
page 1. Defendant’s Exhibit A was received without objection.
///
1 Plaintiffs’ appeal for the 2012-13 tax year is from an Order of the Board of Property Tax Appeals. Plaintiffs’ appeal for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 tax years is under ORS 305.288(1) (2011).
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject property is located in Troutdale, Oregon, along the Historic Columbia River
Highway. (Def’s Ex A at 14.) It is a 3,001-square foot,2 two-story house built in 1920 located
on a 1.62-acre lot backing to the Sandy River. (Id.) The subject property includes five bedrooms
and three bathrooms. (Id.) It also includes a two-car garage, a 36 by 40-foot outbuilding with
“separate storage and shop space,” and a 13 by 20-foot storage building with a 7 by 7-foot pump
house. (Id. at 6, 14.) Dayton wrote that the subject property has “private septic and [a] shared
water well.” (Id. at 7.)
St. Clair and Dayton testified that they each inspected the subject property. Dayton
testified that he considered the subject property to be an “era property” - it includes features not
found in newer homes. He testified that both the subject property’s quality of construction and
its condition were “good.” (See Def’s Ex A at 14.) Dayton observed that the subject property’s
“kitchen appeared to have been remodeled within the last eight years” and included “hardwood
flooring, all hardwood cabinets with solid granite counter tops, all stainless appliances, [and]
stainless steel backsplash.” (Id. at 6.) Dayton testified that the subject property’s bathrooms
appeared to have been updated.
St. Clair testified that the subject property received some “recent cosmetic upgrades”
including new tiles in the bathrooms, a jetted tub, and a nice laundry and mud room. She
testified that the subject property had not been “renovated” or “restored.” St. Clair testified that
she considers a “restored” home one that has been brought up to date. She testified that a
“remodel” involves the “structure” and “systems” of a property, including plumbing and wiring.
St. Clair testified that the subject property is like an “old pig with lipstick.”
2 St. Clair’s written evidence stated that the subject property is 2,915 square feet. (See, e.g., Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 9.) She testified at trial that was a typographical error; the subject property is 3,001 square feet.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 2 St. Clair testified that, in her view, several “issues” with the subject property negatively
affect its value. (See Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 7.) She testified that the subject property’s windows appeared
to be the original 1920 windows; it is not insulated; it shares a driveway; it lacks air
conditioning; it includes only one working fireplace; and it “requires extensive well
maintenance.” (Id.) St. Clair testified that she did not think the subject property’s wiring had
been updated, although she was not sure. Dayton disagreed with St. Clair that all of the subject
property’s windows were 1920 originals. He testified that he observed windows in bedrooms
that had been updated.
St. Clair also testified regarding several “issues” with the subject property’s location:
it “lies in the 100 year floodplain and flooded in 1996”; it “is in a National Scenic Area which
restricts its use”; and it is in a flight path. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 7.) She testified that location in a
National Scenic Area could be a detriment because it may impose restrictions on a buyer’s
ability to tear down the subject property and build a new house. St. Clair testified on
cross-examination that there may be a pool of buyers specifically interested in scenic area
properties.
A. Sales comparison approaches
St. Clair testified that, in general, river-front homes are desirable. Dayton testified that
the subject property appeals to a “niche market.” St. Clair and Dayton both testified that they
searched the Regional Multiple Listing Service (RMLS) for river-front homes that sold close to
each of the three assessment dates at issue. St. Clair testified that she searched RMLS for sales
in “Area 144,” which includes Troutdale, Corbett, and Sandy. St. Clair testified that it was
difficult to find sales because the market was slow.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 3 St. Clair testified that she completed a “bracket analysis” for each of the three tax years at
issue. She testified that she did not make “specific,” quantitative adjustments because those
adjustment are “too subjective” and not truly based on market evidence. St. Clair testified that
she relied on her experience and knowledge of buyer and seller expectations to determine a value
range for the subject property for each of the three tax years at issue. (See, e.g., Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 9.)
Dayton testified that he tried to find comparable sales that would bracket the subject
property in various respects. He testified that he wanted to avoid “across the board” adjustments
(e.g., all upward adjustments for one aspect of the properties). Dayton made adjustments for
“design (style)”; “quality of construction”; condition; “room count”; “gross living area”;
“functional utility”; “heating/cooling”; “garage/carport”; and “site amenities.” (See, e.g., Def’s
Ex A at 14.) Dayton made no adjustments for differences in lot size or for time because he could
not identify market evidence from which to determine appropriate adjustments. Dayton testified
that several of his sales were located in a floodplain, like the subject property: sale 1 for the
2010-11 tax year; sale 1 for the 2011-12 tax year; and sales 2 and 3 for the 2012-13 tax year. All
of Dayton’s comparable sales except for those on Interlachen Lane used septic systems like the
subject property. (Id. at 8.)
Dayton testified that he viewed all of his comparable sales from the “curbside”; he did
not view the interiors. (See id.) He testified that he was unable to verify any of his comparable
sales with either the buyer or the seller. Dayton reported pending dates rather than closing dates
for all of his comparable sales. He testified that all of his sales were closed sales, but the
pending dates reflected the “meeting of minds.”
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 4 1. 2012-13 tax year
For the 2012-13 tax year, the subject property’s real market value was $548,220 and its
maximum assessed value was $461,750. (Def’s Ex A at 4.)
St. Clair relied on three properties that sold in 2011 and 2012 with prices per square foot
ranging from $100.71 to $124.46 and an average of $115.94. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 9.) She determined
that the average price of $115.94 per square foot indicated a value of $347,936 for the subject
property. (Id.) St. Clair concluded a value range of $337,000 to $357,000 for the subject
property for the 2012-13 tax year. (Id.) St. Clair’s sale 1 was a 3,108-square foot home built in
1998 on a 1.78-acre lot with Columbia River Gorge views that sold for $313,000 in July 2011.
(Id.) She testified that sale 1 was “definitely superior” to the subject property. St. Clair testified
that sale 1 was a short sale, but she used it without making any adjustment because she did not
consider it to be a distress sale.
St. Clair’s sales 2 and 3 were also used by Dayton as sales 2 and 3 in his 2012-13 sales
comparison approach. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 9; Def’s Ex A at 17.) Sale 2 was a 3,214-square foot house
built in 1970 with a two-car garage located on 1.11 acres in Troutdate that sold for $400,000 in
March 2012. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 9.) Dayton noted that sale 2 was located 1.2 miles from the subject
property. (Def’s Ex A at 17.) He concluded an adjusted price of $484,000 for sale 2. (Id.)
Sale 3 was a 4,810-square foot house built in 1938 with a four-car garage located on 2.77 acres
in Corbett with view of the Columbia River Gorge that sold for $590,000 in March 2012. (Ptfs’
Ex 1 at 9.) St. Clair testified that sale 3 was remodeled and she considered it to be a “high
indicator” of value. Dayton determined an adjusted price of $487,000 for sale 3. (Def’s Ex A
at 17.)
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 5 Dayton gave “primary consideration” to his sale 1, a property that sold for $470,000 and
for which he determined an adjusted sale price of $559,000.3 (See id. at 12, 17.) He testified that
he gave sale 1 primarily consideration due to “its location on the same stretch of road and
backing to the Sandy River as the subject” property. (Id. at 12.) Dayton gave “strong secondary
consideration” to sales 2 and 3. (Id.) He concluded a real market value of $520,000 for the
subject property as of January 1, 2012. (Id. at 13.)
2. 2011-12 tax year
For the 2011-12 tax year, the subject property’s real market value was $574,990 and its
maximum assessed value was $448,310. (Def’s Ex A at 4.)
St. Clair identified two properties that sold in 2011. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 26.) Her first sale, in
February 2011, was a 2,160-square foot house on a 2.17-acre lot that sold for $372,325, or
$172.37 per square foot. (Id.) St. Clair testified that sale 2 was a ranch home with a daylight
basement on 1.78 acres. (See id.) Her second sale was the same sale that she identified as sale 1
in her 2012-13 analysis. (Id.) St. Clair testified that neither of her two sales were great
comparable sales, but they were the best she could find for the 2011-12 tax year. The average
price per square foot of her two sales was $136.54, indicating a value of $409,757 for the subject
property. (Id.) St. Clair concluded a value range of $345,000 to $365,000 for the subject
property. (Id.)
St. Clair’s sale 1 was also used by Dayton as his comparable sale 1 for the 2011-12 tax
year. (Def’s Ex A at 15.) He concluded an adjusted sale price of $505,000 for that sale. (Id.)
Dayton noted that “[t]he ‘curb appeal’ and overall appearance of quality of construction both
3 Dayton acknowledged at trial that RMLS indicated sale 1 included a second garage. (See Ptfs’ Ex 3 at 8; Def’s Ex A at 17.) He testified it was an “oversight” to make a garage adjustment. (See id.) Dayton initially concluded an adjusted price of $569,000 for sale 1. (Def’s Ex A at 17.) The adjusted price of sale 1 is $559,000 if the garage adjustment of $10,000 is removed. (See id.)
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 6 looked inferior to that of the subject” property. (Id. at 9.) Dayton testified that he placed
primary weight on his sales 1, 4, and 5 for the 2011-12 tax year. Dayton’s sale 4 for the 2011-12
tax year was the same as his sale 3 for the 2012-13 tax year, for which he concluded an adjusted
price of $487,000. (Id. at 16.) Dayton’s sale 5 was a 3,367-square foot house built in 1992 on a
1.83-acre lot that sold for $560,000 in December 2009.4 (Id.) He concluded an adjusted sale
price of $521,000 for that sale. (Id.) Dayton concluded the subject property’s real market value
was $510,000 for the 2011-12 tax year. (Id. at 13.)
3. 2010-11 tax year
For the 2010-11 tax year, the subject property’s real market value was $639,400 and its
maximum assessed value was $435,260. (Def’s Ex A at 4.)
St. Clair identified five properties that sold between July and December 2009 with prices
per square foot ranging from $109.35 to $171.30 and an average of $147.39. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 30.)
A price of $147.39 per square foot indicates a value of $442,317 for the subject property. (Id.)
St. Clair concluded a value range of $420,000 to $440,000 for the subject property. (Id.)
St. Clair’s sale 1 was a 2,373-square foot house built in 1950 with a one-car garage
located on 1.93 acres in Corbett that sold for $320,000 in July 2009. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 30.) She
testified that it had a “peek-a-boo” view of the river and she considered it to be a low indicator of
value. St. Clair’s sale 2 was a 3,100-square foot house built in 1964 with a two-car garage
located on 2.98 acres in Sandy that sold for $339,000 in September 2009. (Id.) She testified
that sale 2 was a remodeled property with “sweeping river views.” St. Clair’s sale 3 was a
2,160-square foot house built in 1973 with a two-car garage located on 1.07 acres in Sandy that
sold for $370,000 in October 2009. (Id.) She testified that sale 3 was a river-front property on
4 Dayton reported the pending date as October 12, 2009. (Def’s Ex A at 14.) The sale closed December 4, 2009. (See Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 30; Ptfs’ Ex 3 at 2.)
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 7 public water with new windows and a shop. St. Clair’s sale 4 was a 3,367-square foot house
built in 1992 with a 2-car garage located on 1.83 acres in Sandy that sold for $560,000 in
December 2009. (Id.) She testified that sale 4 was a remodeled property on the Sandy river and
she considered it to be a high indicator of value. St. Clair’s sale 5 was a 4,642-square foot house
built in 1935 with no garage located on 2.57 acres in Corbett with Columbia River Gorge views
that sold for $720,000 in August 2009. (Id.) She testified that sale 5 had been “taken to the
studs” and remodeled to add insulation and update the wiring, plumbing, and windows. St. Clair
testified that sale 5 was “rehab[ilitated] to the period” and was a high indicator of value.
St. Clair’s sale 4 was used by Dayton as his sale 2. (Ptfs’ Ex 1 at 30; Def’s Ex A at 14,
16.) Dayton made a $30,000 downward adjustment to his sale 2 for its superior “functional
utility.”5 (Def’s Ex A at 14.) He testified that the “functional utility” adjustment reflected the
superior floor plan and layout of a house built in 1992 as compared with one built in 1920.6
Dayton concluded an adjusted price of $521,000 for sale 2. (Id.) Dayton’s sale 1 was a
2,924-square foot house built in 1933 with a one-car garage located on 9.16 acres in Corbett that
sold for $500,000 in March 2010. (Def’s Ex A at 14; Ptfs’ Ex 3 at 1.) Dayton testified that sale
1 had a similar size and river front location as the subject property. Dayton made upward
adjustments of $4,620 for gross living area; $10,000 for the garage; and $10,000 for the
“inferior” outbuilding, but did not make any adjustment for the site size. (Def’s Ex A at 14.) He
5 Plaintiffs questioned why Dayton did not make a $30,000 “functional utility” adjustment to his sale 5 for the 2011-12 tax year, which is the same sale as his sale 2 for the 2010-11 tax year. Dayton testified that he made the same $30,000 adjustment to sale 5 for the 2011-12 tax year, but he listed it under the “quality of construction” category. (See Def’s Ex A at 16.) 6 Dayton stated in his report that one of the subject property’s “bedroom[s] on the main level ha[ve] a slight functional matter as the traffic pattern requires using the utility room to enter the bedroom; however, this can also be deemed a room for domestic help habitation with no negative market reaction that can be measured. As the home has three to four other bedrooms no functional adjustment is deemed measurable.” (Def’s Ex A at 6.)
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 8 concluded an adjusted price of $525,000 for sale 1. (Id.) Plaintiffs provided an RMLS print-out
for Dayton’s sale 1 listing the total square feet as 3,302. (Ptfs’ Ex 3 at 1.)
Dayton’s sale 3 was a 1,483-square foot house built in 1962 with 520 square feet of
finished basement and a two-car garage located on 0.13 acres on Interlachen Lane in Fairview
that sold for $440,000 in August 2009. (Def’s Ex A at 14; Ptfs’ Ex 3 at 3.) Dayton testified that
properties located on Interlachen have “community water” and “public sewer,” unlike the subject
property. He concluded and adjusted price of $518,000 for sale 3. (Def’s Ex A at 14.) Dayton
“favor[ed]” his sales 1 and 2, but gave sale 1 “strong primary consideration” and gave sales 2
and 3 “secondary consideration.” (Id. at 11.) He concluded the subject property’s 2010-11 real
market value was $522,000. (Id. at 13.)
B. Market trends
St. Clair testified that she reviewed RMLS Market Action reports from 2010 through
2013 to ensure that her real market value conclusions made sense in light of market trends.
(See generally Ptfs’ Ex 2.) She testified that the market action reports were “not specifically
reflected” in her sales comparison approach; she used them only as a check on her analysis.
St. Clair testified that the market trend in “Area 144” was downward 14.0 percent between
January 2009 and January 2010; downward 4.6 percent between January 2010 and January 2011;
downward 7.1 percent between January 2011 and January 2012; and downward 0.2 percent
between January 2012 and January 2013. (Ptfs’ Ex 2 at 3, 6, 9, 12.) St. Clair testified that
January 2012 was the low point for the tax years at issue. (Id. at 13.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue before the court is the real market value of the subject property for the 2010-11
through 2012-13 tax years. “Real market value is the standard used throughout the ad valorem
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 9 statutes except for special assessments.” Richardson v. Clackamas County Assessor
(Richardson), TC-MD No 020869D, WL 21263620 at *2 (Mar 26, 2003) (citations omitted).
Real market value is defined in ORS 308.205(1), which states:
“Real market value of all property, real and personal, means the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm’s length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year.”
The assessment date for the 2010-11 tax year was January 1, 2010; the assessment date for the
2011-12 tax year was January 1, 2011; and the assessment date for the 2012-13 tax year was
January 1, 2012. ORS 308.007; ORS 308.210.
The real market value of property “shall be determined by methods and procedures in
accordance with rules adopted by the Department of Revenue[.]” ORS 308.205(2). The three
approaches of value that must be considered are: (1) the cost approach; (2) the sales comparison
approach; and (3) the income approach. OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(a). Although all three
approaches must be considered, all three approaches may not be applicable in a given case. Id.
Here, both parties relied on the sales comparison approach.
The sales comparison approach “may be used to value improved properties, vacant land,
or land being considered as though vacant.” Chambers Management Corp v. Lane County
Assessor, TC-MD No 060354D, WL 1068455 at *3 (Apr 3, 2007) (citations omitted). The
“court looks for arm’s length sale transactions of property similar in size, quality, age and
location” to the subject property. Richardson, WL 21263620 at *3.
“In utilizing the sales comparison approach only actual market transactions of property comparable to the subject, or adjusted to be comparable, will be used. All transactions utilized in the sales comparison approach must be verified to ensure they reflect arms-length market transactions. When nontypical market conditions of sale are involved in a transaction (duress, death, foreclosures, interrelated corporations or persons, etc.) the transaction will not be used in the
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 10 sales comparison approach unless market-based adjustments can be made for the nontypical market condition.” OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(c).”
OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(c).
Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of
the evidence. ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of
evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).
“[I]t 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.” Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18
OTR 324, 332 (2005) (citing Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59 (2002)). “[I]f the evidence
is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof * * *.”
Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265, 798 P2d 235 (1990). “[T]he court has jurisdiction to
determine the real market value or correct valuation on the basis of the evidence before the court,
without regard to the values pleaded by the parties.” ORS 305.412.
A. 2012-13 tax year
For the 2012-13 tax year, St. Clair concluded the subject property’s real market value was
in the range of $337,000 to $357,000 based on three sales. St. Clair’s first sale was a short sale,
but she did not make any adjustment for that “nontypical market condition” as required under
OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(c). St. Clair’s sale 1 was a much newer property than her other two
sales and St. Clair testified that sale 1 was “definitely superior” to the subject property. Yet, the
price per square foot of St. Clair’s sale 1 was $22 to $24 per square foot less than her other two
sales. The evidence indicates that St. Clair’s sale 1 does not provide a reliable indicator of the
subject property’s real market value absent an adjustment for the nontypical market condition.
St. Clair’s other two sales were also used by Dayton. St. Clair did not make adjustments
to either of those sales, as contemplated by OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(c). Dayton made
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 11 adjustments for differences and determined adjusted prices of $484,000 and $487,000. The court
finds that Dayton’s adjustments were reasonable and accepts his adjusted values.
Dayton concluded a 2012-13 real market value of $520,000 for the subject property based
on his determination that sale 1 would be given “primary consideration” with “strong secondary
consideration” to sales 2 and 3. The court is not persuaded that Dayton’s sale 1 should be given
more weight than sales 2 and 3. As Dayton noted, his sale 1 was the least comparable with
respect to the sale date; it was pending on June 29, 2012. (Def’s Ex A at 12, 17.) Dayton’s
sale 2, located 1.2 miles from the subject property, was located closest to the subject property
and sale 3 required the smallest net adjustment. The court finds that the comparable sales
indicate a real market value of $500,000 for the subject property as of January 1, 2012.
B. 2011-12 tax year
For the 2011-12 tax year, St. Clair relied on only two sales, one of which was the short
sale that she used for the 2012-13 tax year. As in her 2012-13 analysis, St. Clair did not make
any adjustment for that “nontypical market condition” as required under OAR 150-308.205-
(A)(2)(c). The unadjusted price of St. Clair’s sale 1, $172.37 per square foot, indicates a real
market value of $502,460, rounded, for the subject property. Dayton also used that sale in his
analysis for the 2011-12 tax year and concluded an adjusted sale price of $505,000 for the sale.
Although the average price of St. Clair’s two 2011-12 sales was $136.54 per square foot,
indicating a value of $409,757 for the subject property, she determined that a real market value
in range of $345,000 to $365,000 was appropriate. It is unclear on what basis she made that
determination. The court finds no evidence to support St. Clair’s real market value conclusion
for the 2011-12 tax year. By contrast, the Dayton’s conclusion that the subject property’s real
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 12 market value was $510,000 for the 2011-12 tax year is supported by the adjusted prices of his
three best comparable sales, which ranged from $487,000 to $521,000.
C. 2010-11 tax year
St. Clair relied on five sales in her analysis for the 2010-11 tax year, with unadjusted
prices per square foot ranging from $109.35 to $171.30. Those unadjusted prices indicate a
range of $328,160 to $514,071, rounded, for the subject property. Although the average price
per square foot, $147.39, indicated a value of $442,317 for the subject property, St. Clair
concluded a real market value range of $420,000 to $440,000 for the subject property. As with
her analyses for the 2012-13 and 2011-12 tax years, St. Clair made no adjustments to any of her
sales. Dayton concluded a real market value of $522,000, based primarily on two sales for
which he concluded adjusted sale prices of $525,000 and $521,000, respectively. He gave
secondary consideration to his sale 3, with an adjusted price of $518,000. Plaintiffs provided a
RMLS print-out for Dayton’s sale 1 that states total square feet of 3,302, indicating the
appropriate gross living area adjustment should have been downward $18,060 for a revised
adjusted price of $501,940 for sale 1. The court finds that the evidence supports a real market
value of $515,000 for the subject property as of January 1, 2010.
D. Requirements of ORS 305.288(1) and ORS 305.275(1)(a)
Plaintiffs appeal the subject property’s real market value for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 tax
years under ORS 305.288(1), which states in pertinent part:
“The tax court shall order a change or correction applicable to a separate assessment of property to the assessment and tax roll for the current tax year or for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year, or for any or all of those tax years, if all of the following conditions exist:
“(a) For the tax year to which the change or correction is applicable, the property was or is used primarily as a dwelling (or is vacant) and was and
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 13 is a single-family dwelling, a multifamily dwelling of not more than four units, a condominium unit, a manufactured structure or a floating home.
“(b) The change or correction requested is a change in value for the property for the tax year and it is asserted in the request and determined by the tax court that the difference between the real market value of the property for the tax year and the real market value on the assessment and tax roll for the tax year is equal to or greater than 20 percent.”
As discussed above, the court found that the subject property’s real market value was $515,000
for the 2010-11 tax year and $510,000 for the 2011-12 tax year. The differences between those
real market value conclusions and the real market values on the assessment and tax rolls are not
equal to or greater than 20 percent for either the 2010-11 or 2011-12 tax years. As a result, the
court has no authority to order a change for either tax year.
For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiffs must be
aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). “In requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275,
the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong.” Kaady v. Dept. of
Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000). This court has consistently interpreted ORS 305.275(1)(a) to
require that a taxpayer’s requested relief result in tax savings to the taxpayer. See Parks Westsac
L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999). The 2012-13 maximum assessed value of the
subject property was $461,750, and the court did not receive evidence as to whether a reduction
in the real market value to $500,000 would result in tax savings to Plaintiffs.
III. CONCLUSION
After carefully considering the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that the
subject property’s real market value was $515,000 for the 2010-11 tax year; $510,000 for the
2011-12 tax year; and $500,000 for the 2012-13 tax year. The court lacks authority under
ORS 305.288(1) to order a change to the assessment and tax rolls for the 2010-11 and 2011-12
tax years. Plaintiffs’ appeals for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 tax years must be dismissed. The
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 14 court did not receive evidence as to whether a reduction in the subject property’s 2012-13 real
market value to $500,000 would result in tax savings to Plaintiffs. The 2012-13 assessment and
tax roll will be adjusted only if Plaintiffs are aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a). Now,
therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs’ 2010-11 and 2011-12 appeals
of property identified as Account R287114 are dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that the 2012-13 real market value of property identified as
Account R287114 was $500,000. The assessment and tax roll will be adjusted only if Plaintiffs
are aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a).
Dated this day of January 2014.
ALLISON R. BOOMER 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.
This document was signed by Magistrate Allison R. Boomer on January 7, 2014. The Court filed and entered this document on January 7, 2014.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130293N 15