IN THE MAGISTRATE DIVISION
OF THE OREGON TAX COURT
Property Tax
JASON A. CONOLLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 010156E
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on its own motion to dismiss the above-entitled
appeal. The court discussed its motion with the parties during the case management
conference held May 17, 2001. Jason A. Conolly appeared on his own behalf. Theresa
Maul, Appraiser, appeared on behalf of defendant (the county)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Conolly purchased the subject property in July 1999 for $163,900.1 For the
2000-01 tax year, the county assigned the property a real market value of $193,875.
Believing the county’s value was too high given the purchase price he paid, Mr. Conolly
decided to appeal the value. When he called the county to inquire about filing an appeal,
he discovered he was one day late for filing an appeal with the Deschutes County Board of
Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA). The county advised him to file his appeal with this court
instead. Because Mr. Conolly failed to timely exhaust his remedy with the BOPTA, the
court must determine whether it has authority to consider the appeal under ORS 305.288.
See Seifert v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 401 (1998).
///
1
The subject property is identified in the county’s records as Account
No. 171125BD 01314.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
1
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Oregon Legislature has developed an appeals system for taxpayers to follow
when challenging the assessed and real market values assigned to their properties. The
first step in the appeal process is to a county BOPTA. Taxpayers are required to file
appeals with the appropriate county board by December 31 of the current tax year. ORS
309.100(2).2
The legislature recognized situations may exist that prevent a taxpayer from timely
appealing to the county board. As a result, the legislature granted the court authority to
review untimely appeals when the taxpayer either (1) establishes “good and sufficient
cause” for not timely pursuing an appeal with the county board or (2) alleges an error equal
to or greater than 20 percent. ORS 305.288(1), (3).
Good and Sufficient Cause
ORS 305.288(3) states:
“The tax court may order a change or correction * * * 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 * * * taxpayer has no statutory right of
appeal remaining and the tax court determines that good and sufficient
cause exists for the failure by the * * * taxpayer to pursue the
statutory right of appeal.” (Emphasis added).
The statute defines good and sufficient cause as follows:
“‘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
2
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes are to 1999.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
2
///
“(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.” ORS 305.288(5)(b) (emphasis added).
Mr. Conolly has no significant reason for his failure to timely file an appeal with the
BOPTA. Time apparently got away from him and he simply inquired about filing an appeal
a day late. This does not constitute “good and sufficient cause” as defined and anticipated
by the statute.
Gross Error
The legislature has also granted the court authority to consider untimely appeals
when a taxpayer alleges a value error equal to or greater than 20 percent. See
ORS 305.288(1). To allege an error of at least 20 percent, Mr. Conolly would need to
allege a value equal to or less than $155,100. He claims the value should only be reduced
to $163,900. With no error of 20 percent being alleged, the court finds it lacks authority to
accept jurisdiction over this appeal.3 Now, therefore;
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the above-entitled matter be dismissed.
Dated this ______ day of May, 2001.
________________________________
COYREEN R. WEIDNER
MAGISTRATE
IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE REGULAR
DIVISION OF THE OREGON TAX COURT, FOURTH FLOOR, 1241 STATE ST., SALEM,
OR 97301-2563. YOUR COMPLAINT MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF THIS DECISION OR THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL AND CANNOT
BE CHANGED.
3
As discussed at the conference, because the county agrees the real market value
of the property should be reduced to $163,900 for the 2000-01 tax year, the parties may
consider entering into a Stipulated Agreement and filing the agreement with the
Department of Revenue for review under its supervisory power.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
3
THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE COYREEN R. WEIDNER ON MAY
18, 2001. THE COURT FILED THIS DOCUMENT ON MAY 18, 2001.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
4
