Rough & Ready Lumber LLC v. Department of Revenue

CourtOregon Tax Court
DecidedMay 19, 2014
DocketTC-MD 140014N
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rough & Ready Lumber LLC v. Department of Revenue (Rough & Ready Lumber LLC v. Department of Revenue) 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
Rough & Ready Lumber LLC v. Department of Revenue, (Or. Super. Ct. 2014).

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax

ROUGH & READY LUMBER LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 140014N ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL

The court entered its Decision of Dismissal in the above-entitled matter on

April 30, 2014. The court did not receive a request for an award of costs and disbursements

(TCR-MD 19) within 14 days after its Decision of Dismissal was entered. The court’s Final

Decision of Dismissal incorporates its Decision of Dismissal without change.

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s affirmative defense, asserting that

Plaintiff’s Complaint was untimely and should be dismissed. (Def’s Ans at 1.) A case

management conference was held in this matter on April 14, 2014, during which the parties

discussed Defendant’s affirmative defense and agreed to submit additional written arguments.

Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s affirmative defense on April 17, 2014, and Defendant

filed its Reply on April 22, 2014. This matter is now ready for the court’s determination.

A. Statement of Facts

On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Josephine County Clerk stating that it

“would like to formally appeal the Real Market Value as assessed on our 2013-14 real property

tax statements* * *.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 3, Apr 17, 2014.) The letter identified the property at issue as

Account R346494 (subject property). (Id.) On December 24, 2013, the Josephine County Board

of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA) Clerk sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that BOPTA:

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140014N 1 “lacks jurisdiction on the appeal you submitted for [the subject property]. BoPTA cannot hear appeal on DOR-appraised industrial property. I have enclosed information on how to appeal your property value with the Department of Revenue along with a copy of the petition you submitted to our office.”

(Ptf’s Ltr at 5, Apr 17, 2014.) A Department of Revenue publication entitled “How to Appeal

Your Property Value” was attached. (Id. at 6-7.) The publication states, in pertinent part:

“Generally, if you wish to appeal the value of industrial property appraised by the Department of Revenue (DOR), you must file your appeal with the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. The deadline to file an appeal is December 31. If December 31 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the filing deadline moves to the next business day.”

(Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted).)

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to this court stating that it “would like to

formally appeal the Real Market Value as assessed on our 2013-14 real property tax statements

* * *.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 8, Apr 17, 2014.) A BOPTA petition, a tax statement, and a 2013 value

transmittal sheet for the subject property were attached. (Id. at 8-12.) Plaintiff’s letter was

stamped “Received” by the Magistrate Division on January 2, 2014. (Id. at 8.) On January 3,

2014, the court sent a letter to Plaintiff stating, in pertinent part, that Plaintiff’s

“documents were received in the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court on January 2, 2014. The court has not filed your documents. * * * To file a valid appeal with the Magistrate Division, a Complaint form must be completed and returned with the documents being appealed and the required fee of $252.00 or a complete fee waiver or deferral application for the court’s consideration.”

(Id. at 15 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff’s Complaint, including the fee of $252, was

postmarked to the court on January 6, 2014. (Ptf’s Compl at 8.)

B. Analysis

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint was not timely filed with this court and

should be dismissed. (Def’s Reply at 1.) Under ORS 305.403(2), an appeal of the assessed

value of principal or secondary industrial property must be filed “with the tax court in the

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140014N 2 manner prescribed under ORS 305.560 during the period following the date the tax statements

are mailed for the current tax year and ending December 31.”1 Plaintiff does not challenge the

applicability of ORS 305.403 in this case. (See generally Ptf’s Ltr at 1, Apr 17, 2014.) Thus, the

filing deadline for Plaintiff’s Complaint was December 31, 2013. The question becomes

whether Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on or before December 31, 2013.

ORS 305.418 states, in part, “[a]ny complaint required by law to be filed with the

Oregon Tax Court that is: (1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed

(a) on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing

it[.]” ORS 305.490(1)(a) states “[p]laintiffs or petitioners filing a complaint or petition in the tax

court shall pay the filing fee established under ORS 21.135 at the time of filing for each

complaint or petition.” (Emphasis added). Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 1

A(3) reiterates the requirement that a fee is due under ORS 305.490 and ORS 21.135 for each

complaint filed and states that “[t]he fee must be tendered at the time of the filing of the

complaint.” (Emphasis added).

This court has ruled that “[a] complaint cannot be filed until both an original copy of the

complaint and the required fee are submitted to the Tax Court.” Purtzer v. Dept. of Rev.

(Purtzer), 20 OTR 99, 100 (2010) (citing ORS 305.490) (emphasis in original). “A plaintiff may

also request a waiver of the required fee at the time of filing the complaint.” Id. at 100 (citing

ORS 21.685). In Purtzer, this court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal as untimely when the

plaintiff failed to submit her complaint with the required fee or a request for waiver of the

required fee within the time provided for appeal. Id. at 101 (citing Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345

Or 544, 547-58, 200 P3d 126 (2008)).

1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011.

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 140014N 3 Although Plaintiff mailed a letter to the court on December 30, 2013, expressing its intent

to file an appeal, Plaintiff failed to include the required fee. Plaintiff’s Complaint, including the

required fee, was not filed with the court until January 6, 2014. Plaintiff’s Complaint was not

timely filed under ORS 305.403(2).

When a complaint is not timely filed, this court may nevertheless have jurisdiction to

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

Related

Garrison v. Department of Revenue
200 P.3d 126 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rough & Ready Lumber LLC v. Department of Revenue, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rough-ready-lumber-llc-v-department-of-revenue-ortc-2014.