Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main Street Phase II, LLC
245 P.3d 81
| Or. | 2010Background
- Two adjacent parcels were bare land on Jan. 1, 2004; taxpayer began developing an apartment complex with site developments and buildings.
- Site developments included grading, roads, utilities, and other improvements; land value statute includes site developments as part of land.
- 2005 valuation: site developments had been largely completed but not valued; land valued by trending from 2004-05, buildings valued separately.
- 2006 valuation: land-trending used; increased value of buildings added; site developments again not valued.
- 2007 assessor sought to treat site developments as omitted property under ORS 311.216, increasing land value and tax liability; Tax Court ruled for taxpayer, treating site developments as not omitted property.
- Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, concluding site developments are an integral part of land listed on the roll and not omitted property under ORS 311.216; statute and context limit the ability to add such value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ORS 311.216 allow adding as omitted property the value of site developments that are an integral part of land already listed on the assessment roll? | Assessor: site developments were omitted in part and can be added under ORS 311.216. | Village: site developments are part of land; not omitted property; cannot be added as omitted. | No; site developments are an integral part of land and not omitted property. |
| Does the text or context of ORS 311.216 resolve whether an integral part of listed property may be added when previously undervalued? | Text allows ‘omitted, in whole or in part,’ including integral parts. | Context shows historical limit; integral parts were not intended to be added. | Context confirms integral parts cannot be added as omitted property. |
| Do amendments to ORS 311.216 (1951, 1971, 1977) create exceptions to the general rule for integral parts? | These amendments create exceptions for certain components. | Exceptions do not extend to integral parts of land here. | Amendments do not create an exception for site developments as omitted property. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Foods v. Dept. of Rev., 10 Or. Tax 7 (1985) (omitted property – whether undervaluation vs. omission varies by context)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation methodology)
- Reynolds, 36 N.E. - wait (Indiana pre-1907) (Indiana decisions informing omitted property interpretation)
- FlorER v. Sherwood, 128 Ind. 495, 28 N.E. 71 (1891) (pre-1907 Indiana omitted property cases on distinctness)
- Woll v. Thomas, 27 N.E. 580 (1891) (Indiana omitted property cases and valuation distinctions)
- Marshall Wells Co. v. Foster County, 59 N.D. 599, 231 N.W. 542 (1930) (North Dakota case cited for omitted property concept)