Preview:

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax ELISHA LEE CARDOSO and LINDA MICHELE CARDOSO, Plaintiffs, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TC-MD 030879F

DECISION

Plaintiffs appeal the imposition of additional taxes for tax years 1999-2000 through 2002-03 due to the discovery of a clerical error. The property is listed as Account R239750 by the Multnomah County Assessor. The court discussed the issue with the parties at the case management conference held on September 23, 2003. Elisha Cardoso (Cardoso) appeared for Plaintiffs. Leslie Cech appeared for Defendant. Plaintiffs purchased the property in 1998, when it was newly constructed. Plaintiffs' understanding when they purchased the property was that the taxes were going to continue at the same general amount as when they purchased the property. While the improvements were added to the real market value for the property, they were not included in the maximum assessed value calculation. Thus, Plaintiffs paid property taxes only on the land. Given the nature of the error, however, it would have been difficult for Plaintiffs to discover Defendant's error simply by monitoring the annual tax statements. Defendant added the improvements to the maximum assessed value calculation when it discovered the error. On April 28, 2003, Defendant notified Plaintiffs of the error, calculating $6,122.10 as additional taxes owing for the four prior years.

DECISION TC-MD 030879F

1

Plaintiffs set forth two arguments. First, Plaintiffs point out that the additional taxes of over $6,000 will work a severe hardship on their family. As an example, Cardoso stated that the family cannot even afford to hang curtains in their young daughters' bedroom. How, he asked, will they be able to pay the additional taxes. The parties discussed at the case management conference an agency that may be able to provide some assistance.1 Plaintiffs also argue that they should not be penalized for Defendant's error. However, that argument has been considered before, and a choice has been made. The legislative decision is set out in ORS 311.205(1)(a),2 which makes clear Defendant may assess the value of the improvements under the clerical error statute. Plaintiffs are not being penalized; Plaintiffs are being held responsible for property taxes they were responsible for in the first place. ORS 311.205(1)(a) states as follows: "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 or the department 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, arithmetic and copying errors, and the omission or misstatement of a land, improvement or other property value on the roll." The error that occurred in Plaintiffs' case is a classic example of a clerical error. The information to correct the error was contained within Defendant's records. While the court

There is one program that allows property owners to defer the payment of property taxes. See ORS 311.666 to ORS 311.701. The program is prospective and limited to individuals who are disabled or over 62 years of age. ORS 311.668(1)(a). A Disabled person is defined as an individual who is "eligible to receive or who is receiving federal Social Security benefits due to disability or blindness * * * ." ORS 311.666(2). There is an income limitation of $32,000 as well. ORS 311.668(1)(b). Plaintiffs may also choose to investigate the federal and state earned income credit. See e.g. ORS 315.266.
2

1

All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2001.

DECISION TC-MD 030879F

2

empathizes with Plaintiffs' dilemma, it may not disregard the statute. Plaintiffs must lose in their appeal. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' appeal is denied. Dated this _____ day of September, 2003.

_________________________________ SALLY L. KIMSEY MAGISTRATE IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL THIS 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 DECISION OR THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL AND CANNOT BE CHANGED. THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE SALLY L. KIMSEY ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2003. THE COURT FILED THIS DOCUMENT ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2003.

DECISION TC-MD 030879F

3



Download 030879F_Cardoso.pdf

Oregon Law