339 P.3d 428
Or.2014Background
- Clackamas County assessed separate land and improvement values for several apartment properties owned by Village at Main Street Phase II & III and Village Residential; taxpayers challenged only the improvement values.
- Taxpayers appealed BOPTA decisions to the Tax Court Magistrate Division; while those appeals were pending, the legislature enacted ORS 305.287 (effective Sept. 29, 2011), allowing any other party to seek determination of other components of a property tax account when one component is appealed.
- Magistrate Division affirmed; taxpayers then filed de novo appeals to the Tax Court Regular Division, again challenging only improvements.
- The Department of Revenue answered and the Clackamas County Assessor intervened and, invoking ORS 305.287, sought for the first time to challenge the land valuations.
- The Tax Court held ORS 305.287 applied only to Magistrate Division appeals and, because the taxpayers’ Magistrate appeals were filed before the statute took effect, declined to allow the county to challenge land value.
- Supreme Court granted review and reversed: ORS 305.287 applies to appeals to the Regular Division (and to county BOPTAs and Magistrate Division appeals), but not to appeals to the Oregon Supreme Court; application in these cases was not retroactive because the Regular Division appeals were filed after the statute’s effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 305.287 applies to appeals to the Tax Court Regular Division | Taxpayers: statute limited to Magistrate Division; Regular Division review is "original, independent, de novo" and statutes do not permit new components there | Dept./Assessor: statute uses broad terms ("whenever" and "body or tribunal") and applies to all review bodies including Regular Division | Held: ORS 305.287 applies to Regular Division appeals; Regular Division can consider new valuation components under the statute |
| Whether ORS 305.287 applies to county boards of property tax appeals (BOPTA) | Taxpayers: BOPTA appeals may be initiated only by taxpayers; ORS 305.287 contemplates a party other than taxpayer initiating additional review | Dept./Assessor: statute refers to "appeals" and "body or tribunal," and legislative history envisions "local appeals board" | Held: ORS 305.287 applies to BOPTA appeals; no statutory conflict prevents BOPTA from determining other components |
| Whether ORS 305.287 applies to appeals to the Oregon Supreme Court | Taxpayers: applying statute would force Supreme Court to make factual findings beyond its limited scope of review | Dept./Assessor: (not argued) | Held: ORS 305.287 does not apply to Supreme Court appeals because that court's scope is limited to error of law or absence of substantial evidence and statute would require original factfinding |
| Whether applying ORS 305.287 here would be retroactive | Taxpayers: statute is retroactive because the underlying matter (Magistrate appeal) was pending before the statute’s effective date | Dept./Assessor: not retroactive because the Regular Division appeals were filed after the statute’s effective date; statute applies to ‘‘appeals’’ and Regular Division appeals are discrete | Held: Not retroactive — taxpayers filed appeals to the Regular Division after the statute took effect, and an appeal to the Regular Division is an independent, post‑effective-date appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or 606 (interpretive framework for statutory construction)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (statutory construction principles)
- Nepom v. Dept. of Rev., 272 Or 249 (Nepom rule: respondent could not raise value of non‑challenged component)
- Brooks Resources Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 499 (component valuation is a factual determination)
- ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire & Casualty Ins., 351 Or 255 (discussion of retroactivity analysis)