Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 50 (Or. T.C. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 50 (Or. T.C. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“if taxpayer is not cite as 23 otr 155 (2018) 191 aggrieved within the meaning of , then tax- payer does not have standing; and, therefore, the court may not exercise its jurisdiction over the claim.”
88 citation events (87 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev. (ortc, 2018-09-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev.
Or. T.C. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if taxpayer is not cite as 23 otr 155 (2018) 191 aggrieved within the meaning of , then tax- payer does not have standing; and, therefore, the court may not exercise its jurisdiction over the claim.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Holiday Hills Trailer Resort, Inc. v. Lincoln County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
so long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Delford M. Smith Revocable Trust v. Yamhill County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
so long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Head v. Lane County Assessor (2×) also: Cited "see"
Or. T.C. · 2018 · confidence medium
In Parks Westsac LLC v. Dept. of Rev., the court ruled that a taxpayer is not aggrieved “[s]o long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value[.]” 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Falls Apartments, LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2016 · confidence medium
Generally, “[s]o long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, [a] taxpayer is not aggrieved.” Parks Westsac LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lindquist v. Yamhill County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
“So long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.” Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ochia v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
In most cases, “[s]o long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.” Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aspell v. Klamath County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
“So long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.” Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hunter v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2012 · confidence medium
Paris v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 519, 521 (2008); Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Greenleaf v. Lane County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2012 · confidence medium
(Parks Westsac), 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holland v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
In Paris, the court concluded taxpayers were not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV still exceeded the property’s maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in RMV would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id.; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling that where a requested reduction in RMV will not affect property taxes taxpayers are not aggrieved); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that the requirement in ORS 305.275 that for a taxpayer to be “aggr…
cited Cited "see" Serafin v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Mayer v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Patel v. Marion County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
cited Cited "see" Truserv Corp v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 100576b (or.tax 9-30-2011)
Or. T.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 50 , 52 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Miller v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100594b (or.tax 8-20-2010)
Or. T.C. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 50 , 52 (1999) (holding that, "[s]o long as the property's *Page 2 maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Swank v. Deschutes County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Paris v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 519, 521-522 (2008) (noting that ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved for the court to have jurisdiction, and finding that, under the facts of that case, the taxpayers failed to show that their requested reduction in RMV would reduce their property tax liability); see also Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50, 52 (1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sullivan v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080531c (or.tax 8-26-2008)
Or. T.C. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
ORS 305.275 (1) requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." This court has previously ruled that "[i]n requiring that taxpayers be `aggrieved' under ORS 305.275 , the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong." Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000); see also Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 50 (1999) (concluding that "[s]o long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vance v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080014c (or.tax 4-11-2008)
Or. T.C. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
This court has previously stated that "[i]n requiring that taxpayers be `aggrieved' under ORS 305.275 , the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong." Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 (2000); see also Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 50 (1999) (concluding that "[s]o long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PARKS WESTSAC L.L.C, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant
TC 4366..
Oregon Tax Court.
Sep 28, 1999.
15 Or. Tax 50
Thomas P. Kerr, Sacramento, filed a responds for Plaintiff (taxpayer). James C. Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motions and briefs for Defendant (the department).
Byers.
Cited by 83 opinions  |  Published
CARL N. BYERS, Judge.

Plaintiff (taxpayer) appeals the 1997-98 real market value assigned to its property, even though the assessed value is less. Taxpayer asserts that because the 1996-97 real market value was adjudicated under ORS 309.115, [1] that value must be carried over to the 1997-98 tax year. Defendant Department of Revenue (the department) has filed a[*51] Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment, both of which assert that taxpayer is not “aggrieved” within the meaning of ORS 305.275. If taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of that statute, then taxpayer does not have standing; and, therefore, the court may not exercise its jurisdiction over the claim.

FACTS

Taxpayer appealed the 1996-97 real market value of its property to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. Omitting history not relevant here, taxpayer prevailed and the real market value was established at $624,070. For the 1997-98 tax year, the assessor set the real market value at $831,320. However, this was not used as the assessed value because the newly enacted Measure 50 (Article XI, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution) established a maximum assessed value for taxpayer’s property of $561,663.

ISSUE

Is taxpayer aggrieved by the assessor placing an increased real market value on the assessment records?

ANALYSIS

Taxpayer claims the benefits of ORS 309.115. ORS 309.115(1) provides:

“* * * If the board of property tax appeals or the tax court or other court enters an order correcting the value of a separate assessment of property and there is no further appeal from that order, except as provided under subsection (2) of this section, the value so entered shall be the value entered on the assessment and tax rolls for the five assessment years next following the year for which the order is entered.” (Emphasis added.)

If that statute was applied literally, then taxpayer’s assessment for the 1997-98 tax year would be $624,070 instead of $561,663. That is hardly in taxpayer’s interest. The only reason that taxpayer’s assessed value is not $624,070 is because its property’s maximum assessed value is established under the constitution, and the constitution overrides the statute.

[*52] The court concludes that taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275. So long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved. In the future, if the adjudicated value under ORS 309.115 is ever less than the maximum assessed value and the assessor does not apply the adjudicated value, the taxpayer at that time can make a claim for the benefits of ORS 309.115. Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is deemed moot. Costs to neither party.

1

All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes are to 1997.