Preview:

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax FEBRONIO ENRIQUEZ and LINDSEY ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. HOOD RIVER COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TC-MD 060039E

DECISION OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on its own motion to dismiss the above-entitled appeal. The court discussed its motion with the parties during the case management conference held March 14, 2006. During the conference, the court questioned whether it had authority to provide Plaintiffs with the relief requested. The parties presented their positions and submitted the case to the court for ruling. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs purchased their newly constructed home in September 2001 for $162,800.1 For the 2002-03 tax year, which was the first year the home appeared on the tax roll, Defendant assigned the property a real market value (RMV) of $220,783. Applying a change property ratio (CPR) of roughly 68 percent, Defendant derived a maximum assessed value (MAV) of $151,209. Plaintiffs do not recall receiving a tax statement for the 2002-03 tax year, although Defendant sent that statement to the same address it sent the subsequent years' statements, which Plaintiffs acknowledge receiving. ///

1

The property is identified in Defendant's records as Account 12340.

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 060039E

1

Although Plaintiffs did not timely appeal the 2002-03 values, many of their neighbors in the new subdivision did timely appeal. Based on the various appeals, Defendant reconsidered its real market value determinations for that area and concluded they had estimated RMVs that were too high. For the 2003-04 tax year, Defendant reduced the subject property's RMV to $153,192. The MAV, pursuant to a constitutional formula, increased three percent to $155,745. Because the MAV became more than the RMV for the 2003-04 tax year, Defendant used the RMV to calculate the property's tax liability. After receiving their 2005-06 tax statement, Plaintiffs began to discuss their liability with neighbors and friends. They soon discovered that their tax liability was significantly higher than many of the neighboring properties. Friends suggested they file an appeal seeking relief for the 2002-03 tax year, because that was the year the MAV was set. Plaintiffs filed their appeal seeking an RMV adjustment for the 2002-03 tax year and MAV adjustment for tax years 2002-03 and following. II. ANALYSIS The Oregon Legislature has developed an appeals system for taxpayers to follow when challenging the assessed and real market values assigned to their properties. The first step in the appeal process is to a county board of property tax appeals (BOPTA). Taxpayers are required to file appeals with the appropriate county board by December 31 of the current tax year. ORS 309.100(2).2 To challenge the 2002-03 values, therefore, Plaintiffs should have filed an appeal with the Hood River County BOPTA by December 31, 2002. They did not. The legislature recognized situations may exist that prevent a taxpayer from timely appealing to the BOPTA. As a result, the legislature granted the court authority to review

2

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

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 060039E

2

appeals of earlier tax years when a taxpayer demonstrates "good and sufficient cause" for not timely pursuing their appeal or they allege and demonstrate a value error of at least 20 percent. See ORS 305.288. The court's authority to consider untimely appeals under those two circumstances, however, is limited to the "current tax year or for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year." ORS 305.288(1), (3) (emphasis added). In the subject case, the current tax year is the 2005-06 tax year. The two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year are the 2004-05 and 2003-04 tax years. The 2002-03 tax year is beyond the reach of the court's authority. The court finds, therefore, that the 2002-03 tax year must be dismissed. Plaintiffs contend that, if the court cannot adjust the 2002-03 tax year, then it should adjust the MAV for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 tax years to reflect the RMV reduction occurring in the 2003-04 tax year. As explained at the conference, however, the court has no authority to adjust the MAV for those years. For new property, the MAV is calculated by multiplying the RMV of the property by a ratio of "the average maximum assessed value over the average real market value for the assessment year" of properties of the same class. ORS 308.153 (1)(b); see ORS 308.149(3)(a). That ratio is commonly referred to as the "CPR" and is intended to afford new properties a tax break equal to similarly situated properties. For the 2002-03 tax year, Defendant multiplied its RMV determination of $220,783 by the CPR to derive a MAV of $151,209. The law provides that, for each successive year, the MAV will increase no more than three percent a year. See Or Const, Art XI,

Download 060039EEnriquezDecisionwpd.pdf

Oregon Law