Chapter 309








      County board of property tax appeals has jurisdiction to hear valuation disputes regardless of whether issue is factual or legal. 23rd & Flanders LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor, 17 OTR 438 (2003)






      Jurisdiction over the question of applicability of a partial exemption lies not with the board of equalization under ORS 309.100, but pursuant to the provisions of [former] ORS 306.520. Heenan and Domogalla v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 78 (1972)


      A taxpayer must contest the assessed value in each of the years in which he desires a change in such value. State Finance Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 651 (1975)


      Department of Revenue lacked authority under [former] ORS 305.090 and [former] ORS 306.111 (providing general supervisory power) to order reduction in 1976 assessment of certain state parking lots, where state had failed to appeal to Board of Equalization as required by this section, although 1975 assessment, based on same values, had been appealed and reduced. Domogalla v. Department of Revenue, 283 Or 377, 584 P2d 256 (1978)


      Appeal of disqualification for special farm use assessment should not be taken under this section but directly to department under ORS 305.275. Glancy v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 117 (1991)


      Taxpayer may challenge valuation given to specific improvements rather than challenging valuation of property as whole. Poddar v. Dept. of Revenue, 328 Or 552, 983 P2d 527 (1999)






      Assessor/tax collector’s office acting on “oral direction” of board of equalization could not change valuation on tax rolls as this section specifically requires board to give its orders in writing. Noyes v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 325 (1978)


      Where significant procedural protection is provided taxpayers, as by this section, administrative agency must demonstrate that procedural failure was harmless error, and not place burden on taxpayer to demonstrate substantial prejudice. Noyes v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 325 (1978)


      Failure to furnish assessor copy of formal board order as required under this section is good and sufficient cause for assessor’s failure to appeal value within time required under ORS 305.280 and assessor may appeal value ordered to department under ORS 306.115. Umatilla County Assessor v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 121 (1992)






      This section does not bar taxpayer from appealing on ground that tax administrator incorrectly applied section in adjusting property value; but taxpayer may not appeal true cash value and at same time claim benefit of this section. Pacificorp v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 463 (1990)


      This section does not prevent assessor from increasing assessed value based on trending. Surrett v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 81 (1991)


      Where, with certain exceptions, value of property ordered on appeal for tax year is fixed for next five years pursuant to this section, evidence showing lesser value for property for year fixed will be disregarded in making determination of value for later year under trending exception. Kashani v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 143 (1992)