Preview:

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax OKADA FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TC-MD 100450C

DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the court on Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Motion), filed May 18, 2010. Defendant asserts in its Motion that "[p]laintiff has not alleged facts showing that plaintiff is ,,aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 because plaintiff has not requested a reduction in real market value which will result in any reduction in tax payable by plaintiff for the tax year in question." (Defs Mot at 1 (citation omitted).) The court held a hearing August 5, 2010, to address Defendants Motion. Plaintiff was represented by Roy Okada, Trustee. Defendant was represented by Jeff Sanders, Scarlet Weigel, and Scott Carver. The court orally granted Defendants motion during the August 5, 2010, proceeding after hearing Plaintiffs response. The property at issue is identified as Account R312517. Plaintiff appealed from an unfavorable decision of the county board of property tax appeals (BOPTA) for the 2009-10 tax year. In its Complaint to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court, Plaintiff requested a reduction in the real market value (RMV) of the subject property for the 2009-10 tax year from $383,280 to $366,780. The propertys assessed value (AV) is $201,260. During the hearing, Plaintiffs representative stated that a lower value estimate for RMV of approximately $335,000 can be shown if he includes "short sales" in calculating the overall average value of similar

DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS TC-MD 100450C

1

properties. Defendants representatives responded by stating that Plaintiff would not achieve any tax savings if the RMV were reduced to the lower $335,000 figure. Defendant is correct. ORS 305.2751 requires that a party appealing to this court be "aggrieved." This court has previously ruled that a taxpayer is not aggrieved unless the requested reduction in value will produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Paris v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 519 (2008), Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322 (2004), Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000), Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999), Oden-Orr v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC-MD No 070295C, WL 1745220 *1 (2007); Frank v. Washington County Assessor, TC-MD No 050170E, WL 1432482 *1 (2005). Plaintiff in this case is not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV to $335,000 is still well above the $201,260 AV for the property and, if Plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a reduction in RMV to $335,000, the property taxes would not be reduced. The reason is because, under Oregon law, there is no direct linkage between RMV and AV. Gall v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 268, 270-71 (2003). The lack of such a direct correlation between RMV and AV is the result of Measure 50, a constitutional amendment passed by referendum of the states voters in 1997. Prior to the passage of Measure 50, a propertys RMV and AV were generally the same. Thus, a reduction in RMV produced a corresponding reduction in AV which, in turn, reduced property taxes. Measure 50 established a new method for calculating AV through the concept of MAV, which in 1997 was 90 percent of the propertys 1995 RMV on the rolls (back two years less ten

1

References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2007.

DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS TC-MD 100450C

2

percent). See Or Const, Art XI,

Download 100450CDECOFDISMOKADAFamilyTrust.pdf

Oregon Law