Jones v. Lane County Assessor
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax JEFF JONES dba BULLDOG FINANCIAL INC, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. TC-MD 050167B DECISION A case management conference was convened on May 16, 2005. Jeff Jones appeared on his own behalf. Thomas L. Frederiksen represented Defendant. The parties agreed the case would be decided based on written submissions. Subsequently, information and arguments were submitted. The record closed July 15, 2005. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The property is residential in character and identified as Account 921351. On the assessment date, there was an uninhabitable structure on the property. Plaintiff intends to have it removed. Demolition costs were estimated approximating $20,000. Defendant does not dispute those facts. As for the 2004-05 tax year, Plaintiff presented his appeal to the Lane County Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA). Upon review, the following reductions were made: FROM TO Real Market Value (RMV): $87,873 $66,403 Maximum Assessed Value (MAV): $47,786 $47,786 Assessed Value (AV): $47,786 $47,786 /// DECISION TC-MD 050167B 1 Plaintiff largely accepts the revised RMV at $66,403. However, he now claims he similarly is entitled to a pro rata reduction in the MAV, based on the estimated demolition costs. He requests the court determine the MAV to be $27,786. II. ANALYSIS A property s historic MAV is derived using a constitutional formula. As a result, the court is unable to modify the subject property s MAV. To lower his tax bill, Plaintiff would need to demonstrate the property s RMV was near or below the MAV. No such allegation has been made. There is simply no basis for the court to make adjustments based on estimated future demolition costs. See ORS 308.146(2).1 A similar issue was argued in the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. In that case the court stated in an order: Under Measure 50 and the statutes implementing it, there is no linkage between the RMV and MAV. Instead, each value is determined and one of the two, the lesser, becomes, in any given year, the assessed value (AV) for the property. Gall v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 268, 270 (2003). Plaintiff, therefore, is not automatically entitled to a reduction in MAV simply because the RMV was changed by BOPTA. There is no error or omission by Defendant for the 2004-05 tax year. Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. A [p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence. Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). [I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof. Reed v. Dept. of Revenue, 310 Or 260, 265, 798 P2d 235 (1990). Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record. 1 All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes are to 2003. DECISION TC-MD 050167B 2 III. CONCLUSION After considering the written submissions, the court concludes the appeal must be denied. Now, therefore, IT IS ADJUDGED that this appeal is denied. Dated this ____ day of November 2005. ________________________________ JEFF MATTSON 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 Jeff Mattson November 30, 2005. The Court filed and entered this document November 30, 2005. DECISION TC-MD 050167B 3
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.
