IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
MAHAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSON COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC-MD 090091D
DECISION OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (motion), filed
March 11, 2009, requesting that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. Defendant’s motion was
discussed at a telephone case management conference on April 8, 2009. Plaintiff’s representative,
Louis F. Mahar II, agreed to submit Plaintiff’s written response to Defendant’s motion no later
than May 8, 2009. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed its written response.
Defendant’s motion concludes that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s
appeal of the real market value of property identified as Accounts 10982131 and 10982174 for
tax years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. For all tax years, the parties agree that Plaintiff failed to
file a timely appeal with the board of property tax appeals (BOPTA). Further, the parties agree
that the court’s jurisdiction, if any, to hear Plaintiff’s appeal is found in ORS 305.288(3)1 which
provides:
“The tax court may order a change or correction applicable to a separate
assessment of property 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 assessor taxpayer has no statutory
right of appeal remaining and the tax court determines that good and sufficient cause
exists for the failure by the assessor or taxpayer to pursue the statutory right of appeal.”
The parties agree that Plaintiff has no statutory right of appeal remaining. The parties disagree that
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to year 2007.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 090091D
1
Plaintiff had “good and sufficient cause” for failing “to pursue the statutory right of appeal.” Id.
The term “good and sufficient cause” is defined in ORS 305.288(5)(b) 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
“(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)(A) sets forth a two part test. First, good and sufficient cause is “an
extraordinary circumstance that is beyond the control of the taxpayer.” Id. Second, the statute
requires a causal connection between the event that was beyond a taxpayer’s control and the
failure “to pursue the statutory right of appeal.” Id.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good and
sufficient cause for failing to pursue its statutory right of appeal. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.
Dated this ______ day of June 2009.
________________________________
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 June 2,
2009. The Court filed and entered this document on June 2, 2009.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 090091D
2
