Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288 (2026)

Valuation changes for residential property substantial value error or for good and sufficient cause

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

305.288 Valuation changes for residential property substantial value error or for good and sufficient cause. (1) The tax court shall order a change or correction applicable to a separate assessment of property to the assessment and tax roll for the current tax year or for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year, or for any or all of those tax years, if all of the following conditions exist:

(a) For the tax year to which the change or correction is applicable, the property was or is used primarily as a dwelling (or is vacant) and was and is a single-family dwelling, a multifamily dwelling of not more than four units, a condominium unit, a manufactured structure or a floating home.

(b) The change or correction requested is a change in value for the property for the tax year and it is asserted in the request and determined by the tax court that the difference between the real market value of the property for the tax year and the real market value on the assessment and tax roll for the tax year is equal to or greater than 20 percent.

(2) If the tax court finds that the conditions needed to order a change or correction under subsection (1) of this section exist, the court may order a change or correction in the maximum assessed value of the property in addition to the change or correction in the real market value of the property.

(3) The tax court may order a change or correction applicable to a separate assessment of property to the assessment or tax roll for the current tax year and for either of the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year if, for the year to which the change or correction is applicable, the assessor or taxpayer has no statutory right of appeal remaining and the tax court determines that good and sufficient cause exists for the failure by the assessor or taxpayer to pursue the statutory right of appeal.

(4) Before ordering a change or correction to the assessment or tax roll under subsection (3) of this section, the tax court may determine whether any of the conditions exist in a particular case. If the tax court determines that one of the conditions specified does exist, the tax court shall hold a hearing to determine whether to order a change or correction to the roll.

(5) For purposes of this section:

(a) “Current tax year” has the meaning given the term under ORS 306.115.

(b) “Good and sufficient cause”:

(A) Means an extraordinary circumstance that is beyond the control of the taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s agent or representative, and that causes the taxpayer, agent or representative to fail to pursue the statutory right of appeal; and

(B) Does not include inadvertence, oversight, lack of knowledge, hardship or reliance on misleading information provided by any person except an authorized tax official providing the relevant misleading information.

(6) The remedy provided under this section is in addition to all other remedies provided by law. [Formerly 306.116; 1999 c.767 §1; subsection (7) of 2005 Edition enacted as 2003 c.655 §47a; 2009 c.33 §6; 2013 c.176 §2; 2019 c.585 §20]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 191 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Gray v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 220 (Or. T.C. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gray v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 220 (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 46× “116 as amended does not appear in the 1997 edition of the ORS because, as will be discussed, it was renumbered to ORS 305.288. 38 As indicated by the note after ORS 305.”

Work v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 11× “However, given the scope of the claims of taxpayer as to other years, taxpayer might have standing to change the MAV in tax year 2013-14 if there was a corresponding change in any or all of tax years 2010-11 through 2012-13, or in relation to the lookback period, explained…”

Shevtsov v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 83 (Or. T.C. 2020). · cites it 11× ““(b) The change or correction requested is a change in value for the prop- erty for the tax year and it is asserted in the request and determined by the tax court that the difference between the real market value of the property for the tax year and the real market value on the…”

Work v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 P.3d 375 (Or. 2018). · cites it 5× “See ORS 305.288(3). 2 The magistrate accordingly made no changes to the real market value, the maximum assessed value, or the assessed value on the rolls for the first three tax years (2010-11 to 2012-13).”

Dep't of Revenue v. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons, P.C., 15 Or. Tax 284 (Or. T.C. 2001). · cites it 8× “A second rescue provision, ORS 305.288, gives the Tax Court similar authority to correct an assessment for the current tax year and for the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year.”

Karamanos Holdings Inc. I v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 198 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 9× “403 as recently amended applied, and that because of that statutory context, taxpayer’s appeal to the Magistrate Division was untimely and not a failure for good and sufficient cause such that the court could consider the matter under ORS 305.288. Oral argument on cross-motions…”

Nicolynn Props. LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 320 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 6× “223, the court would potentially be able to address some of taxpayer’s claims under ORS 305.288 if taxpayer could show that it qualified under that statute.”

Richardson v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 207 (Or. T.C. 2016). · cites it 13× “The third route to relief is pursuant to ORS 305.288. That statute directs the Tax Court to order changes or cor- rections to an RMV determined by an assessor for the cur- rent year and the two immediately preceding years where the property is a dwelling and the assessment…”

Clifford Parsons, Tr. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 331 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 5× “ISSUES The issues in this case are: (1) Whether taxpayer has timely appealed to this court from action of the assessor; and (2) If not, whether this court nonetheless has jurisdiction to consider the matter under ORS 305.288. 334 Clifford Parsons, Trustee v.”

Hoggard I v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 406 (Or. T.C. 2019). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs appeal from a magistrate’s Final Decision of Dismissal, in which the magistrate (1) found that Plaintiffs had conceded that their appeal to the Magistrate Division was untimely; and (2) considered, but rejected, Plaintiffs’ arguments that their failure was for “good…”

Ferschweiler v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, 16 Or. Tax 429 (Or. T.C. 2001). · cites it 12× “100, the court cannot order a reduction in value unless the provisions of ORS 305.288 are satisfied. Seifert v. Dept.”

Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 497 (Or. T.C. 2021). “If the BOPTA does not reduce the value, or if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the amount of the reduction, the taxpayer may appeal to the Magistrate Division within 30 days. See ORS 305.280(4).”

Show all 191 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(1) — 89 cases

Gray v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 220 (Or. T.C. 2018). “116 as amended does not appear in the 1997 edition of the ORS because, as will be discussed, it was renumbered to ORS 305.288. 38 As indicated by the note after ORS 305.”

Work v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2017). “However, given the scope of the claims of taxpayer as to other years, taxpayer might have standing to change the MAV in tax year 2013-14 if there was a corresponding change in any or all of tax years 2010-11 through 2012-13, or in relation to the lookback period, explained…”

Shevtsov v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 83 (Or. T.C. 2020). ““(b) The change or correction requested is a change in value for the prop- erty for the tax year and it is asserted in the request and determined by the tax court that the difference between the real market value of the property for the tax year and the real market value on the…”

Helms Deep, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 25 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 2023).

Mughal v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 509 (Or. T.C. 2019).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(1)(a) — 21 cases

Helms Deep, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 25 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 2023).

Helms Deep, LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2022).

Columbia River Gorge Resort LLC v. Wasco Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(1)(a)(b) — 2 cases

Shevtsov v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2022).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(1)(b) — 23 cases

Musil v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2021).

Schmidt v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2015).

CitiMortgage Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2017).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(2) — 5 cases

Dep't of Revenue v. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons, P.C., 15 Or. Tax 284 (Or. T.C. 2001). “A second rescue provision, ORS 305.288, gives the Tax Court similar authority to correct an assessment for the current tax year and for the two tax years immediately preceding the current tax year.”

Dep't of Revenue v. Froman, 14 Or. Tax 543 (Or. T.C. 1999).

Wall v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018).

Head v. Lane Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018).

Barnes v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(3) — 111 cases

Work v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 P.3d 375 (Or. 2018). “See ORS 305.288(3). 2 The magistrate accordingly made no changes to the real market value, the maximum assessed value, or the assessed value on the rolls for the first three tax years (2010-11 to 2012-13).”

Clifford Parsons, Tr. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 331 (Or. T.C. 2013). “ISSUES The issues in this case are: (1) Whether taxpayer has timely appealed to this court from action of the assessor; and (2) If not, whether this court nonetheless has jurisdiction to consider the matter under ORS 305.288. 334 Clifford Parsons, Trustee v.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(3)(5)(b)(A) — 1 case

Dabreo v. Deschutes Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2020).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(4)(b) — 1 case

Seifert v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 401 (Or. T.C. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5) — 10 cases

Hoggard I v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 406 (Or. T.C. 2019). “Plaintiffs appeal from a magistrate’s Final Decision of Dismissal, in which the magistrate (1) found that Plaintiffs had conceded that their appeal to the Magistrate Division was untimely; and (2) considered, but rejected, Plaintiffs’ arguments that their failure was for “good…”

Hoggard II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 543 (Or. T.C. 2019).

Earth Sci. Prods. Corp. v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Fidler v. Deschutes Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025).

Hoggard v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(A) — 1 case

NW Northrup Props., LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(B) — 1 case

NW Northrup Props., LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(a) — 13 cases

Blue Moon Care Home LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Earth Sci. Prods. Corp. v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Work v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Trunnell v. Lane Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(b) — 45 cases

Karamanos Holdings Inc. I v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 198 (Or. T.C. 2013). “403 as recently amended applied, and that because of that statutory context, taxpayer’s appeal to the Magistrate Division was untimely and not a failure for good and sufficient cause such that the court could consider the matter under ORS 305.288. Oral argument on cross-motions…”

Ferschweiler v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, 16 Or. Tax 429 (Or. T.C. 2001). “100, the court cannot order a reduction in value unless the provisions of ORS 305.288 are satisfied. Seifert v. Dept.”

Walker v. Deschutes Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2017).

3D Logics, LLC v. Washington Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2023).

Burns v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2017).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(b)(A) — 36 cases

23rd & Flanders LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 438 (Or. T.C. 2003).

Blue Moon Care Home LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Cramers Grinding & Tooling v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2023).

Mehr Fam. Trust v. Polk Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100316c (or.tax 3-3-2011) (Or. T.C. 2011).

Lee v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(5)(b)(B) — 34 cases

23rd & Flanders LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 438 (Or. T.C. 2003).

Blue Moon Care Home LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Earth Sci. Prods. Corp. v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016).

Guadalajara Grill v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2017).

Cramers Grinding & Tooling v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(6) — 3 cases

Richardson v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 207 (Or. T.C. 2016). “The third route to relief is pursuant to ORS 305.288. That statute directs the Tax Court to order changes or cor- rections to an RMV determined by an assessor for the cur- rent year and the two immediately preceding years where the property is a dwelling and the assessment…”

Douglas Cnty. Assessor v. Banducci & Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(l)(a) — 1 case

Ferschweiler v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, 16 Or. Tax 429 (Or. T.C. 2001). “100, the court cannot order a reduction in value unless the provisions of ORS 305.288 are satisfied. Seifert v. Dept.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.288(l)(b) — 2 cases

Seifert v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 401 (Or. T.C. 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.