Oakmont LLC v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD 120159D

Oakmont LLC appeals the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) denial of supervisory jurisdiction under ORS 306.115 for the 2008-09 tax year on Account 01662070; the DOR concluded no likely error on the roll due to lack of explicit agreed facts as of January 1, 2008.
Prior year values included: 2009-10 VRM $8,500,000 (stipulated); 2010-11 $6,800,000; 2008-09 roll value $22,914,810; county appraisal and related statements were considered by the DOR.
The subject property’s value history involved construction defects noted in 2007, with post-2008 knowledge regarding extent and costs; Plaintiff sought supervisory review to correct the 2008-09 roll.
The DOR conference record (Feb. 8, 2012) relied on statements indicating investigation occurred, but did not contain explicit, unequivocal facts agreeing to a 2008-01-01 condition impacted by defects.
The Oregon Tax Court applied abuse-of-discretion review under ORS 306.115 and affirmed the DOR’s decision, denying Plaintiff’s motion and granting Defendants’ motions; the decision was signed Apr. 16, 2013.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOR abused discretion by denying supervisory jurisdiction for 2008-09	Oakmont argues there were agreed facts showing pre-2008 defects.	County and DOR contend there was no explicit agreement on the 2008 condition.	No abuse; no explicit agreement to relevant facts.
Whether post-2008 knowledge can indicate a likely error for 2008-09	Post-2008 discoveries show defects affecting value.	Such facts do not predate the valuation date.	Post-2008 facts cannot establish likely error for 2008-09.

Eyler v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 160 (1997) (requires explicit facts; inferences insufficient to show agreement)
ADC Kentrox v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 91 (2006) (standard for supervisory jurisdiction; not all disputes rehearable on value)
ADC Kentrox II v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 340 (2007) (stipulations for subsequent years not controlling for prior year)
Direct Imports v. Multnomah County Assessor, 16 OTR-MD 242 (2000) (agreement to facts necessary to indicate likely error)
Ohio State Life Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 423 (1993) (principle guiding determination of whether parties agreed to facts indicating likely error)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 276 (1995) (court may defer to administrator’s judgment absent capriciousness)
Rogue River Pack. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 293 (1976) (limits on court substituting judgment for administrator)
Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 103 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for supervisory review)