Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394 (2026)

Farm machinery and equipment and related property used or held for use for agricultural, horticultural or animal husbandry purposes; exclusion of land and buildings

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      307.394 Farm machinery and equipment and related property used or held for use for agricultural, horticultural or animal husbandry purposes; exclusion of land and buildings. (1) The following property is exempt from ad valorem property taxation:

      (a) Farm machinery and equipment used or held for use primarily in the preparation of land or the planting, raising, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting or placing in storage of farm crops;

      (b) Farm machinery and equipment used or held for use primarily for the purpose of:

      (A) Feeding or breeding livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or bees;

      (B) The management and sale of livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or bees or their produce; or

      (C) Dairying and the sale of dairy products;

      (c) Machinery and equipment used or held for use primarily to implement a remediation plan as defined in ORS 308A.053 for the period of time for which the remediation plan is certified; or

      (d) Farm machinery and equipment used or held for use primarily in any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination of these activities.

      (2)(a) Items of property, including tools and machinery and equipment that are used or held for use primarily in the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, support or operation of farm machinery, and equipment and other real or personal farm improvements that are used or held for use primarily in animal husbandry, agricultural or horticultural activities, or any combination of these activities, are exempt from ad valorem property taxation.

      (b) An item of property described in paragraph (a) of this subsection is exempt from ad valorem property taxation only if the person that owns, possesses or controls the item also:

      (A) Owns, possesses or controls the farm machinery, equipment and other real and personal farm improvements for which the item is used or held for use; and

      (B) Carries on the animal husbandry, agricultural or horticultural activity, or combination of activities, in which the farm machinery, equipment or other real and personal farm improvements are used or held for use.

      (c) This subsection does not apply to land or buildings. [2001 c.753 §15; 2009 c.776 §8; 2024 c.83 §1]

 

      307.395 [1971 c.141 §§1,2; 1983 c.740 §87; repealed by 1991 c.459 §81]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2023 · leading case: Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 32× “Taxpayer argued that its trains and boats, traffic cones and wheelbarrows used by taxpayer’s pumpkin patch visitors were all exempt under ORS 307.394 as qualifying farm machinery and equipment.”
Farmer's Direct, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 399 (Or. T.C. 2021). · cites it 17× “” ORS 307.394; Saunders v. Dept. of Rev., 300 Or 384, 390 , 711 P2d 961 (1985).”
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). · cites it 25× “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Hansen v. Morrow Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220032G (Or. T.C. Dec. 19, 2022). · cites it 18× “Thus, the statute’s requirement is threefold: that an exempt item be “(1) ‘tangible personal property,’ (2) ‘farm machinery and equipment,’ and (3) used primarily for one of the purposes listed in ORS 307.”
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). · cites it 17× “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Farmers Direct, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 160389R (Or. T.C. Mar. 20, 2018). · cites it 9× “394(1)(a) exempts from property taxation: “Farm machinery and equipment used primarily in the preparation of land, planting, raising, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting or placing in storage of farm crops.”
Pollock & Sons, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 120842N (Or. T.C. July 18, 2013). · cites it 12× “Pollock testified regarding the functions of the subject property and provided photographs of the subject 1 The remainder of Defendant’s Exhibit 3 is ORS 307.394 and OAR 150-307.394. DECISION TC-MD 120842N 1 property taken in 2012.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(1): 6 cases
Farmer's Direct, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 399 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” ORS 307.394; Saunders v. Dept. of Rev., 300 Or 384, 390 , 711 P2d 961 (1985).”
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Hansen v. Morrow Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220032G (Or. T.C. Dec. 19, 2022). “Thus, the statute’s requirement is threefold: that an exempt item be “(1) ‘tangible personal property,’ (2) ‘farm machinery and equipment,’ and (3) used primarily for one of the purposes listed in ORS 307.”
Farmers Direct, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 160389R (Or. T.C. Mar. 20, 2018). “394(1)(a) exempts from property taxation: “Farm machinery and equipment used primarily in the preparation of land, planting, raising, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting or placing in storage of farm crops.”
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(1)(a): 5 cases
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). “Taxpayer argued that its trains and boats, traffic cones and wheelbarrows used by taxpayer’s pumpkin patch visitors were all exempt under ORS 307.394 as qualifying farm machinery and equipment.”
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Pollock & Sons, Inc. v. Umatilla Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 120842N (Or. T.C. July 18, 2013). “Pollock testified regarding the functions of the subject property and provided photographs of the subject 1 The remainder of Defendant’s Exhibit 3 is ORS 307.394 and OAR 150-307.394. DECISION TC-MD 120842N 1 property taken in 2012.”
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Farmers Direct, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 160389R (Or. T.C. Mar. 20, 2018). “394(1)(a) exempts from property taxation: “Farm machinery and equipment used primarily in the preparation of land, planting, raising, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting or placing in storage of farm crops.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(1)(b): 2 cases
Hansen v. Morrow Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220032G (Or. T.C. Dec. 19, 2022). “Thus, the statute’s requirement is threefold: that an exempt item be “(1) ‘tangible personal property,’ (2) ‘farm machinery and equipment,’ and (3) used primarily for one of the purposes listed in ORS 307.”
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(1)(c): 2 cases
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(1)(d): 4 cases
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). “Taxpayer argued that its trains and boats, traffic cones and wheelbarrows used by taxpayer’s pumpkin patch visitors were all exempt under ORS 307.394 as qualifying farm machinery and equipment.”
Hansen v. Morrow Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220032G (Or. T.C. Dec. 19, 2022). “Thus, the statute’s requirement is threefold: that an exempt item be “(1) ‘tangible personal property,’ (2) ‘farm machinery and equipment,’ and (3) used primarily for one of the purposes listed in ORS 307.”
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(2): 1 case
Farmers Direct, Inc. Dept. of Rev., No. TC 5328 (Or. T.C. Sept. 6, 2023). “In a prior motion for summary judgment dated filed March 5, 2019, the department asked the court to determine that the subject property, a straw compression system, was not “tangible personal property” and thus was ineligible for exemption from property tax under any provision…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(2)(a): 1 case
Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013). “Taxpayer argued that its trains and boats, traffic cones and wheelbarrows used by taxpayer’s pumpkin patch visitors were all exempt under ORS 307.394 as qualifying farm machinery and equipment.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(a): 1 case
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 307.394(d): 1 case
Dinsdale v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110891N (Or. T.C. Apr. 13, 2012). “” Because the subject property is used to “sort” and pack blueberries, Green determined that the subject property is not farm machinery and equipment entitled to exemption under ORS 307.394. Plaintiff testified that the function of a combine, which is exempt farm machinery, is…”
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.