IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
DENISE A. LACHAPELLE
and JOSEPH G. LACHAPELLE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BENTON COUNTY ASSESSOR,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC-MD 070426D
DECISION
Defendant.
Plaintiffs appeal the real market value and maximum assessed value of their property,
identified as Account 361639, for tax years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.1
The parties stipulated that the real market values of the subject property are as follows:
Tax Year 2004-05
Tax Year 2005-06
Tax Year 2006-07
$644,984
$713,645
$815,057 (Value set by the Board of Property Tax Appeals)
On August 1, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion),
challenging the maximum assessed value of the subject property. Defendant filed its Response
on August 3, 2007. Plaintiffs did not file a reply. This matter is now ready for decision.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
There is no material dispute of fact. The subject property, a single family residence, was
built in 1996. (Ptfs’ Mot for Summ J at 1.) When the property was added to the tax roll for the
1996-97 tax year, “a county appraiser made a decision that the subject dwelling should be valued
as a ‘class 7' thus a market value of $580,120 was appropriate.” (Def’s Resp at 1.) There have
been “no material modifications” to the property. (Ptfs’ Mot for Summ J at 1.)
1
Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to appeal the tax years set forth above when they filed their Motion for
Summary Judgment, August 1, 2007.
DECISION TC-MD 070426D
1
Plaintiffs allege that they appealed the value of the subject property in 2002 and 2006 to
the Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA). (Id.) No details of the 2002 tax appeal were
presented in Plaintiffs’ Motion. The parties agree that at the BOPTA hearing for the 2006-07 tax
year a county appraiser “acknowledged a classification error was made regarding the subject
property.” (Id. at 2.) The subject property was “reclassified from Class 7 to Class 6,” resulting
in “a reduction of 30.7% in the RMV.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs request that the court order a reduction in maximum assessed value. Plaintiffs
allege that the court has jurisdiction to order the reduction for the current year and two prior
years because Plaintiffs’ real market value reduction is “well above the 20% limit required by
ORS 305.288.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs allege that the court has the “[a]uthority to correct
MAV,” citing a prior court decision, Stewart v. Multnomah County Assessor (Stewart),
TC-MD No 010130C.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties agree that the question before the court is whether there is any statutory
authority allowing a reduction of the subject property’s maximum assessed value for tax years
2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. In 1996 and all years subsequent to the present, the law
remained unchanged, stating that:
“The maximum assessed value of property shall equal 103 percent of the
property’s assessed value from the prior year or 100 percent of the property’s
maximum assessed value from the prior year, whichever is greater.”
ORS 308.146(1).
There is no allegation that the maximum assessed value of the subject property has not been
correctly calculated in accordance with ORS 308.146(1) for all tax years beginning in 1996-97
and moving forward to the current tax year under appeal.
DECISION TC-MD 070426D
2
Plaintiffs conclude that ORS 305.2882 grants them the right to appeal and for the court to
make the requested reduction. ORS 305.288 allows a taxpayer to seek a reduction in the real
market value of property even though the taxpayer failed to pursue the statutory right of appeal to
BOPTA. In this case, ORS 305.288 is applicable to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the real market value of
the subject property because “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.” ORS 305.288(1)(b). The parties stipulated to a reduction in real market
value for tax years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
ORS 305.288 does not grant the court the authority to redetermine maximum assessed
value; it sets forth certain circumstances when a change in real market value may be ordered by
the court.
The Oregon Constitution makes no provision for reducing the maximum assessed value.
The silence of section 11 of the Oregon Constitution with respect to downward adjustments to
maximum assessed value was a “conscious decision” showing an intent for “any value decreases
[to] to be reflected in the alternative to maximum assessed value: real market value.” Taylor v.
Clackamas County Assessor (I), 14 OTR 504, 510 (1999) (emphasis added). That is the situation
presented to the court. The parties agree that the real market value of the subject property shall
be reduced. Because the real market value is now less than the maximum assessed value, the real
market value is the taxable assessed value of the subject property for tax years 2004-05, 2005-06,
and 2006-07. See also Ellis v. Lorati, 14 OTR 525, 534 (1999) (holding that “[p]aragraph
[11(1)] (g) is clearly intended to prevent going back in history and revising each property’s MAV
starting point.”)
2
References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2005, unless otherwise stated.
DECISION TC-MD 070426D
3
Plaintiffs mistakenly cite Stewart to support their belief that the court has the “[a]uthority
to [c]orrect MAV.” (Ptfs’ Mot for Summ J at 2.) In Stewart, the plaintiff requested the court to
reduce the maximum assessed value of his property “by removing most if not all the exceptions
RMV added by defendant because of the refurbishing.” Stewart, TC-MD No 010130C at 4. In
other words, for the tax year appealed, the maximum assessed value of the plaintiff’s property
was increased because improvements were made and the value of those improvements was
placed on the tax roll. The plaintiff believed that the value of those improvements was incorrect
and should be removed from the tax roll. However, the plaintiff failed to appeal the real market
value which is the starting point in the amount of value added to the maximum assessed value for
improvements. For the value of improvements added to a property, the maximum assessed value
is calculated by multiplying the real market value of the property by a ratio of “the average
maximum assessed value over the average real market value for the assessment year.” of
properties of the same class. ORS 308.153(1)(b) (1999); see ORS 308.149(3)(a) (1999)
(defining average maximum assessed value). Because plaintiff failed to appeal the real market
value, the court could not reach the issue of real market value. If the court had determined that
the real market value should be changed, then a new maximum assessed value would have been
calculated by applying a ratio to the real market value for the new improvements and adding that
value to the prior year maximum assessed value which, by statute, can increase no more than
three percent.
The facts of this case are not the same as Stewart. In this case, Plaintiffs are appealing
the maximum assessed value originally placed on the roll in 1996 which was statutorily increased
each year thereafter. There have been no new improvements to the subject property. As
previously explained, there is no provision in the law which grants the court the authority to
change maximum assessed value.
DECISION TC-MD 070426D
4
III. CONCLUSION
The parties have agreed to the real market value of the subject property for tax years
2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. There is no statutory authority for the court to change the
maximum assessed value of the subject property. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the stipulated real market values of the
subject property are as follows:
Tax Year 2004-05
Tax Year 2005-06
Tax Year 2006-07
$644,984
$713,645
$815,057 (Value set by the Board of Property Tax Appeals); and
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiffs’ appeal of the maximum assessed value of the
subject property is denied.
Dated this _____ day of September 2007.
______________________________
JILL A. TANNER
PRESIDING 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 Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on
September 11, 2007. The Court filed and entered this document on
September 11, 2007.
DECISION TC-MD 070426D
5
