Sherman v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 322 (Or. T.C. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Sherman v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 322 (Or. T.C. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …no showing that the requested reduction in rmv would reduce taxpayers' property tax liability. at p. 323 ⚠ not in text
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev.
Or. T.C. · 2018 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Paris v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 519, 521-22 (2008); Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004); Parks Westsac L.L.C., 15 OTR at 52 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." JJWIN Investment v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 150079C 2 assessed value and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in [real market value] would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id. at 521 ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling taxpayers not aggrieved where requested reduction in real market value will not affect property taxes); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that “[i]n requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Holland v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110458c (or.tax 12-14-2011)
Or. T.C. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
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 "aggrieve…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Holland v. Multnomah County Assessor
Or. T.C. · 2011 · signal: see also · 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, e.g." White v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110227c (or.tax 11-8-2011)
Or. T.C. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 322 , 323 (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).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grishkevich v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 090182c (or.tax 6-30-2009)
Or. T.C. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g. , Sherman v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 322 (2004); Unck v. Multnomah County Assessor , TC-MD No 070110B, WL 2258766 *3 (Jul 30, 2007); Oden-Orr v. Multnomah County Assessor , TC-MD No 070295C, WL 1745220 *1 (June 12, 2007); Frank v. Washington County Assessor , TC-MD No 050170E, WL 1432482 *1 (June 3, 2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phillip SHERMAN and Vivian Sherman, Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant
TC 4628..
Oregon Tax Court.
Jan 30, 2004.
17 Or. Tax 322
Phillip Sherman and Vivian Sherman, Plaintiffs (taxpayers), filed the response pro se. Douglas M. Adair, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the Motion to Dismiss for Defendant (the department).
Breithaupt.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs (taxpayers) complain of an increase in the real market value (RMV) of a floating home for the 2002-03 tax year. The property apparently was assessed at a maximum assessed value that was substantially below the RMV. Taxpayers have not alleged that the lower RMV for which they contend would have any affect on the tax due on the[*323] property. They have in fact admitted, “the increase in the RMV of the floating home of Slip No. 10 does not immediately impact the Plaintiffs.”

Defendant Department of Revenue (the department) has filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that taxpayers are not aggrieved. Taxpayers have opposed that motion. [1]

II. ISSUE

Are taxpayers aggrieved by the actions of the assessor so as to come within ORS 305.275? [2]

III. ANALYSIS

Taxpayers admit that even if they were to be successful in their action, there would be no immediate impact on them. In such cases this court does not proceed. Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124 (2000); Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999). Taxpayers assert actions of the assessor here were improperly motivated and that they have been denied uniform treatment. Those claims are appendages to the underlying claim as to valuation and suffer its fate.

IV. CONCLUSION

Taxpayers’ Complaint must be dismissed. The department’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Now, therefore,

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed.

1

The filing of taxpayers was styled as a cross-motion for summary judgment. It will be treated as an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

2

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