Rogers v. Coos Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax TED ROGERS and SHEILA ROGERS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. COOS COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. TC-MD 040660F DECISION This matter is before the court upon the agreement of the parties. On August 2, 2004, Defendant's representative, David Koch, stated that Defendant would remove the $66,496 exception value and $63,649 from improvements for the tax year 2003-04. There were no additions made to any earlier tax years. After considering the information revealed at the initial case management conference held July 13, 2004, Defendant agrees that it should have added the property via the omitted property process. See ORS 311.205 to 311.235 (2003). Because the parties are in agreement, the case is ready for decision. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the real market value of the property described as Account 9519.91 is, as agreed, for the 2003-04 tax year; Land: $ 40,000 Improvements: $ 181,913 Total: $ 221,913 Exception Value: $ - 0- IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant shall correct the assessment and tax rolls to reflect the above values. Any refund due following this correction shall be promptly paid with /// DECISION TC-MD 040660F 1 statutory interest. Nothing in this Decision shall prevent Defendant from adding value via the omitted property process. Dated this ____ day of August 2004. _________________________________ SALLY L. KIMSEY MAGISTRATE THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE SALLY L. KIMSEY ON AUGUST 23, 2004. THE COURT FILED THIS DOCUMENT ON AUGUST 23, 2004. 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. DECISION TC-MD 040660F 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.