IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
R. H. TROUTMAN LLC,
dba MOUNTAINS DEPT. STORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CROOK COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC-MD 060526C
DECISION
Plaintiff seeks a reduction in the real market value (RMV) of its personal property for
the 2004-05 tax year based on a reduction in value to $34,2421 for the 2005-06 tax year. (Ptf’s
Compl at 1;2 Def’s Answer at 2.) The court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal under ORS 305.2883
was addressed during the October 6, 2006, case management conference. Ron Troutman
(Troutman) represented Plaintiff at that proceeding. Defendant was represented by Janelle
Humphreys.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff’s appeal was filed May 19, 2006. Relief is sought for the 2004-05 tax year.
Plaintiff did not file a petition with the county board of property tax appeals (board) for the year
at issue, but instead appealed directly to this court.
Plaintiff opened for business in November 2003 at the location of the old Emporium
Department Store (Emporium), which ceased operations in February 2003. Troutman held an
1
Plaintiff’s appeal documents state the reduction was to $34,142; Defendant’s Answer indicates that
$34,242 was the reduced value.
2
Plaintiff filed its appeal in the form of a letter on May 19, 2006. An Amended Complaint, on the court’s
form, was filed on M ay 30, 2006. This citation is to the original appeal filing, the letter.
3
Unless noted otherwise, references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2005.
DECISION TC-MD 060526C
1
interest in the Emporium, but represented to the court that he had not been involved in that
company’s financial matters, including property tax matters. Troutman was, therefore, unaware
of the statutory requirement to file annual personal property tax returns on or before March 1
each year. See ORS 308.290(1)(a), (3) (2003).
Defendant sent Plaintiff a blank return to complete, on which Plaintiff was to report the
value of its personal property as of January 1, 2004 (i. e. 2004-05 tax year). Plaintiff did not
return that form or otherwise report the value of its personal property that year, as required by
law. Defendant, thereafter, made efforts to reach Plaintiff, including sending a letter to Plaintiff
at its corporate office in Springfield, Oregon, on July 23, 2004. That letter explained the
statutory requirement for filing a return and the fact that substantial penalties apply to late
returns. Defendant contends Troutman’s wife referred Defendant to an accountant, Chuck Yuba
(Yuba), in August 2004, and Yuba advised Defendant to use the values for the previous tenant
(Emporium).
Troutman, at some point, visited the assessor’s office to discuss the value Defendant
placed on the property (and the taxes stemming therefrom). Defendant, thereafter, visited
Plaintiff’s store. Plaintiff provided Defendant with value information by letter dated January 13,
2005. The assessor’s visit, and perhaps the information provided by Plaintiff, resulted in a
significant decrease in the value of the personal property for the 2005-06 tax year.
The tax statement for the 2004-05 tax year, which was mailed to Plaintiff in October
2004, reflected a value of $115,764.4 As indicated above, Plaintiff did not appeal that value to
the board. Nor did Plaintiff pay the property taxes assessed by Defendant.
///
4
Cost/market value. Applied depreciation reduced to taxable value of $45,778. (Def’s Answer at 1.)
DECISION TC-MD 060526C
2
Troutman explained that he was unaware of the requirement of filing annual personal
property tax returns and he did not know that he could challenge the assessor’s values by filing a
petition with the board.
II. ANALYSIS
As indicated above, Plaintiff did not follow the statutory process for challenging the value
of its personal property by first petitioning the county board before the December 31, 2004,
deadline provided in ORS 309.100(2) (2003). Plaintiff instead appealed directly to this court.
The court’s authority to review this matter lies, if at all, in ORS 305.288.
ORS 305.288 authorizes the court to reduce the value of a separate assessment of
property for a three-year period covering the “current” tax year or either of the two
immediately preceding tax years, provided, in the case of nonresidential property,5 that the
party seeking relief establishes “good and sufficient cause * * * for the failure * * * to pursue
the statutory right of appeal.” ORS 305.288(3). Plaintiff’s appeal was filed within the three-year
window.
ORS 305.288(5)(b) defines good and sufficient cause as “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.”
Plaintiff did not petition the board in 2004 because Troutman was unaware of that option.
ORS 305.288(5)(B) excludes from the definition of good and sufficient cause, “inadvertence,
///
5
“Residential” property is a judicial euphemism for property “used primarily as a dwelling (or is vacant)
[that] 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.” ORS 305.288(1)(a). Property “used primarily as a dwelling,” can
receive a judicially ordered reduction in value provided the taxpayer alleges, and the court determines, that there is
an error in value of at least 20 percent. See generally ORS 305.288(1). The 20-percent error rule does not apply to
“nonresidential” property, including Plaintiff’s personal property.
DECISION TC-MD 060526C
3
oversight, [and] lack of knowledge[.]” Accordingly, good and sufficient cause is lacking and
Plaintiff’s appeal must be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
The court lacks the authority to consider Plaintiff’s request for a reduction in the value of
its personal property because Plaintiff appealed directly to this court without first petitioning the
board, and Plaintiff did not establish good and sufficient cause for failing to properly pursue the
statutory right of appeal. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
Dated this _____ day of October 2006.
______________________________
DAN ROBINSON
MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.
This document was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on October 25, 2006.
The Court filed and entered this document on October 25, 2006.
DECISION TC-MD 060526C
4
