Boag v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 080878b (or.tax 7-15-2009)
This text of Boag v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 080878b (or.tax 7-15-2009) (Boag v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 080878b (or.tax 7-15-2009)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A case management conference was held on October 15, 2008. Participating were Jerrel B. Boag, Trustee; the subject property's grantee, Gheorghe Stroh; and Paul Chalmers, Umatilla County Assessor. The parties agreed the case would be decided based on subsequent written submissions. That was confirmed by the court's Journal Entry issued October 17, 2008. The record closed December 17, 2008.
Defendant discovered its error in 2008 and sent the required statutory notice dated May 9, 2008. Corrections and revised tax estimates were provided for the five tax years at issue.
Plaintiffs disagree with the corrections, contending that the error was not of their making. Plaintiffs' representative stated at the conference that he had no real dispute with Defendant's concluded values, but contested the action of adding any values to the rolls. Alternatively, he asked for a 50 percent reduction in taxes, an interest waiver, or a payment plan.
ORS
"The officer may correct a clerical error. A clerical error is an error on the roll which either arises from an error in the ad valorem tax records of the assessor, * * * or which is a failure to correctly reflect the ad valorem tax records of the assessor, ** * and which, had it been discovered by the assessor * * * prior to the certification of the assessment and tax roll of the year of assessment would have been corrected as a matter of course, and the information necessary to make the correction is contained in such records. Such errors include, but are not limited to, artithmetic and copying errors, and the omission or misstatement of a land, improvement or other property value on the roll."
Here, the information to correct the error was contained within Defendant's records. That is not an error in value judgment. Corrections that are not valuation judgment related include "the correction of a tax limit calculation." ORS
Similar results have occurred with other cases presented to this forum. See Matthews v. Lane County Assessor, TC-MD No 030819D (Aug 8, 2003); Suess v. LaneCounty Assessor, TC-MD No 020642F (July 30, 2002). *Page 3
Plaintiffs also requested time to pay the total additional taxes billed. The court is without authority to order such payment plans. However, it is noted that Defendant's representative stated during the initial case management conference that Umatilla County may be able to "work with them" as to options and alternatives.
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' appeal is denied.
Dated this __ day of July 2009.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of theDecision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Magistrate Jeffrey S. Mattson on July 15,2009. The Court filed and entered this document on July 15, 2009.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Boag v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 080878b (or.tax 7-15-2009), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boag-v-umatilla-county-assessor-tc-md-080878b-ortax-7-15-2009-ortc-2009.