Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011)

CourtOregon Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 12, 2011
DocketTC-MD 110470D.
StatusPublished

This text of Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011) (Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011)) 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.

Bluebook
Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011), (Or. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

DECISION OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on the parties' Stipulated Agreement, filed September 6, 2011. The parties signed stipulated agreement requested a change to real market value and maximum assessed value but no change to assessed value. Defendant's representative, Mark Hertel, submitted a document entitled Compression Calculations, filed September 7, 2011, stating that the requested change in values does not result in a property tax reduction.

This court has previously concluded that in general, for a taxpayer to be aggrieved, real market value must be lower than the maximum assessed value. Parks Westsac, L.L.C. v. Dept. ofRev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999). In order for a property tax appeal to made, a taxpayer must have standing. (ORS 305.275(1(a)). To have standing, a taxpayer must be aggrieved. Id. "In requiring that taxpayers be "aggrieved" under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong. It did not intend that taxpayers could require the expenditure of public resources to litigate issues that might not ever arise."Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000). For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the requested reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Where a reduction in real market value will not reduce taxes, this court has ruled that taxpayers are not aggrieved. Sherman v. Dept. ofRev., 17 OTR 322 (2004). Plaintiff presented no evidence that the requested *Page 2 reduction in real market value will reduce its taxes. To the contrary, Defendant's Compression Calculations stated that there would be no reduction in Plaintiff's property taxes. Plaintiff has presented no evidence of an "immediate claim of wrong." Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.

Dated this ____ day of September 2011.

If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in theRegular 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 dateof the Decision or this Decision becomes final and cannot bechanged. This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A.Tanner on September 12, 2011. The Court filed and entered thisdocument on September 12, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kaady v. Department of Revenue
15 Or. Tax 124 (Oregon Tax Court, 2000)
Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue
15 Or. Tax 50 (Oregon Tax Court, 1999)
Sherman v. Department of Revenue
17 Or. Tax 322 (Oregon Tax Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-crossing-v-washington-county-tc-md-110470d-ortax-9-12-2011-ortc-2011.