Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.162

Property tax account modifications

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

      308.162 Property tax account modifications. (1) If two or more property tax accounts are merged into a single account, or if property that is attributable to one account is changed to another account, the maximum assessed value of the property may be adjusted to reflect the merger or change, but the total maximum assessed value for all affected accounts may not exceed the total maximum assessed value the accounts would have had under ORS 308.146 or 308.149 to 308.166 if the merger or change had not occurred.

      (2) If a single property tax account is divided into two or more accounts, the maximum assessed value of all property affected by the division may not exceed the total maximum assessed value of the affected property determined under ORS 308.146 or 308.149 to 308.166. [1997 c.541 §16a]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v. Dept. of Rev.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 22× “ORS 308.162 provides in full: 448 Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v.”
Allen v. Department of Revenue (2003) ortc “In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that value is reduced by $2,175,000 for the EIFS damage and $530,000 for personal property resulting in a final value of $5,495,000.”
Comcast Corp. III v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 4909) (2016) ortc · cites it 2× “31 ORS 308.162 authorizes assessors to merge property tax accounts.”
AKS LLC v. Dept. of Rev. (2019) ortc “” Taxpayers also claim that the assessor erred because “the maximum assessed value of all accounts cannot exceed the total maximum assessed value of the affected prop- erty pursuant to ORS 308.162.” Taxpayers do not, however, allege a specific dollar amount for the correct total…”
Dept. of Rev. v. River's Edge Investments LLC (2014) ortc “River’s Edge Investments LLC it is important to consider the value of the convention cen- ter only in connection with the value of the hotel property, a merger of tax accounts might well be a preferred way of proceeding.”
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 6× “Plaintiff did not add any Oregon-sitused new prop- erty or new improvements as of the tax year at issue; therefore as concluded in the original decision, ORS 308.162(1) precluded revaluation of the MAV.”
Schug v. Lincoln County Assessor (2000) ortc · cites it 3× “Jackson’s definition fails to consider that Plaintiffs’ request could fall within the statutory provisions for property tax account modifications set forth in ORS 308.162(2), which provides: “If a single property tax account is divided into two or more accounts, the maximum…”
AKS LLC v. Dept. of Rev. (2017) ortc “” and the maximum assessed value under ORS 308.162. (Ptfs’ Compl at 2–3.) Those challenges to real market and maximum assessed value fit squarely within BOPTA’s jurisdiction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.162(1) — 3 cases
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “ORS 308.162 provides in full: 448 Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v.”
Dept. of Rev. v. River's Edge Investments LLC (2014) ortc “River’s Edge Investments LLC it is important to consider the value of the convention cen- ter only in connection with the value of the hotel property, a merger of tax accounts might well be a preferred way of proceeding.”
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “Plaintiff did not add any Oregon-sitused new prop- erty or new improvements as of the tax year at issue; therefore as concluded in the original decision, ORS 308.162(1) precluded revaluation of the MAV.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.162(2) — 2 cases
Allen v. Department of Revenue (2003) ortc “In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that value is reduced by $2,175,000 for the EIFS damage and $530,000 for personal property resulting in a final value of $5,495,000.”
Schug v. Lincoln County Assessor (2000) ortc “Jackson’s definition fails to consider that Plaintiffs’ request could fall within the statutory provisions for property tax account modifications set forth in ORS 308.162(2), which provides: “If a single property tax account is divided into two or more accounts, the maximum…”
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.