Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.275

Section 305.275(3) requires a taxpayer to appeal to BOPTA before appealing to the Tax Court unless a statutory exception applies.

Morgan Inn Hospitality v. Umatilla County, Tc-Md 080054d (or.tax 5-8-2008) · filed 2008-05-08(3)

A taxpayer may not appeal to this court without first appealing to BOPTA unless a statutory exception applies.

Repeal of former subsection (4) removed its exhaustion requirement for Tax Court appeals but left the separate exhaustion requirement for declaratory relief in place.

Fields v. Department of Revenue · filed 2009-02-02(4)

While the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring an appeal to the Tax Court, formerly found in ORS 305.275(4), has been repealed, that legislative act did not do away with the independent case law exhaustion requirement in respect of declaratory relief.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Magistrate Division when the taxpayer could have appealed to the county board of property tax appeals.

Burkhart v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 110088c (or.tax 6-15-2011) · filed 2011-06-15(3)

The first step is to file a petition with the local county BOPTA where the property is located. ... ORS 305.275 (3) (precluding appeals to the magistrate division of the Tax Court if a taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA). ... Plaintiff in this case did not petition BOPTA for any of the years at issue. Instead, Plaintiff filed a direct appeal to this court in early 2011. 2 In so doing, Plaintiff did not properly pursue her statutory right of appeal.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer could appeal the assessment to the Board of Property Tax Appeals.

Errico v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2021-03-16(3)

“If a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100,” then no appeal may be taken to this court. ORS ... 305.275(3). Here, Plaintiffs appealed to the BOE (the predecessor to BOPTA) for the 1995-96 tax year and received a value reduction. They could have appealed to BOPTA for any subsequent tax year if they thought the subject property’s value was in error.

A taxpayer who could appeal property values to BOPTA must do so before appealing those tax years to the Tax Court.

Phillips v. Umatilla County Assessor · filed 2021-11-16(3)

When a taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA, “then no appeal may be allowed” to the court. ORS 305.275(3). Plaintiffs failed to file an appeal with BOPTA for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 tax years and may not, therefore, appeal to this court under ORS 305.275(3).

A taxpayer must exhaust available local administrative remedies before appealing a local income tax dispute to the Oregon Tax Court.

Salar v. Metro. Service Dist. · filed 2025-09-24(1)(a)(E)

Plaintiff also failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies as required by ORS 305.275 before filing his Complaint.

Section 305.275(1)(a)(E) requires a plaintiff appealing a local net income tax matter to exhaust all administrative remedies before the local government first.

Salar v. Metro. Service Dist. · filed 2026-02-10(1)(a)(E)

Therefore, as to Magistrate Division issue 2, the court readily concludes that Plaintiff has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies provided by Metro through the City, as required under ORS 305.275(1)(a)(E).

Section 305.275 does not provide an appeal to the Department of Revenue from a county commissioners’ decision on a refund claim under ORS 311.806.

Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine · filed 1979-11-07

No appeal from the county court or county commissioners to the Department of Revenue is provided in ORS 305.275 for decisions of the commissioners under ORS 311.806.

Section 305.275 governs appeals to the Department of Revenue; it does not extend the deadline for appealing a Department order to the Tax Court.

Mongeon v. Department of Revenue · filed 1994-07-21

Perhaps recognizing the virtually syllogistic nature of the answer to the question that he raises in this court, taxpayer argues, in the alternative, that he was entitled to file a complaint later than the 60th day after the mailing of the opinion and order of the Department pursuant to two other statutes, ORS 305.275 and 305.280. Those statutes deal with appeals to the Department, not with appeals from an opinion and order of the Department. They are inapposite.

Section 305.275(1) directs a qualifying property valuation appeal to the magistrate division, even when the taxpayer raises constitutional claims.

Wynne v. Department of Revenue · filed 2007-03-29(1)

Plaintiffs allegations that the county’s valuation procedures transgress various constitutional requirements furnish no justification for plaintiffs decision to bypass the magistrate division. Her constitutional law arguments do not alter the fact that her appeal is solely a challenge to the valuation of her property that is subject to ORS 305.275.

ORS 305.275 governs appeals to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court, not the standards for appeals to the Regular Division.

Leaper v. Dept. of Revenue · filed 2008-01-16

ORS 305.275 , by its terms, applies to appeals that may be brought to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court. The standards for appeal to the Regular Division differ from those of the Magistrate Division.

Section 305.275 governs appeals to the Magistrate Division and does not govern appeals from a magistrate decision to the Regular Division.

Village at Main Street Phase II, LLC II v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-04-20

It also provides that any such appeal must be one apart from ORS 305.275, which, as amended at the time of the creation of the Magistrate Division, deals ... only with appeals to the Magistrate Division.

Section 305.275(1)(a) permits an appeal of a department act, omission, order, or determination.

Smith v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-07-15(1)(a)

Plaintiffs have not identified any other “act, omission, order or determination” of Defendant that they wish to appeal. ORS 305.275(1)(a) (2011). Under such circumstances, the court concludes that relief should be granted to Plaintiffs as recommended by Defendant.

Section 305.275(4), together with related tax provisions, requires the Department of Revenue to make a final determination of property value in its order.

Hood River County v. Department of Revenue · filed 1980-01-29(4)

The explicit legislative intent of ORS 305.015, 305.115(1) and (4) and ORS 305.275(4) required the Deputy Director of the Department of Revenue to make a final determination of the true cash value of the subject property in his original order, No. VL 79-48.

Section 305.275(2) allows an aggrieved county assessor to appeal a county board of equalization order; in Multnomah County, the officer assigned assessor duties must bring that appeal, rather than the county itself.

Mult. Co. v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 1980-10-13(2)

The inexorable conclusion to be deduced from the foregoing constitutional, statutory, charter and ordinance enactments is that the appealing party from an order of the Multnomah County Board of Equalization must be the Director of the Department of Administrative Services or his deputy or assistant director. This court so holds, since the department acting through its appropriate officer is given that appellate function by charter and ordinance and he is authorized and obligated to perform that function by force of both state statute and the state Constitution. Thus, "Multnomah County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oregon" had no legal authority to bring the appeal.

Section 305.275(2) permits a county assessor to appeal a county board of equalization order; in a home rule county, the designated assessor officer must bring the appeal rather than the county itself.

Multnomah County v. Department of Revenue · filed 1980-10-13(2)

The inexorable conclusion to be deduced from the foregoing constitutional, statutory, charter and ordinance enactments is that the appealing party from an order of the Multnomah County Board of Equalization must be the Director of the Department of Administrative Services or his deputy or assistant director. This court so holds, since the department acting through its appropriate officer is given that appellate function by charter and ordinance and he is authorized and obligated to perform that function by force of both state statute and the state Constitution. Thus, "Multnomah County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oregon” had no legal authority to bring the appeal.

A county assessor is not aggrieved under § 305.275(2) when the board sustains the valuation the assessor placed on the tax rolls, so the assessor cannot appeal that order to the Department of Revenue.

Wynne v. Department of Revenue · filed 1984-02-01(2)

Pursuant to ORS 305.275(2), the assessor was without standing to appeal to the Department of Revenue and, accordingly, the department lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

An assessor is aggrieved and may appeal a board of equalization order only if the board changes the value the assessor set.

Bear Creek Plaza, Ore., Ltd. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1992-09-17(2)

This rule is reflected in ORS 305.275(2), which requires an assessor to be “aggrieved” before the assessor can appeal. An assessor may appeal from an order of a board of equalization only if the order changes the value set by the assessor.

ORS 305.275 includes BPA and the United States government as “persons” who may appeal a tax assessment.

Hood River County v. Department of Revenue · filed 1995-06-19

Also, BPA and the United States government are “persons” within the meaning of ORS 305.275.

A value appeal to the magistrate division under ORS 305.275 must be from an order of the board.

Tkachenko v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080538c (or.tax 8-22-2008) · filed 2008-08-22(3)

A value appeal to the Tax Court is from an order of the board. ORS 309.110 (7) (providing for an appeal from a board order to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court); ORS 305.275 (3) (providing that an appeal to the magistrate division under ORS 305.275 "is from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed under ORS 309.100 * * * .").

A person who neither owned the property during the tax years at issue nor held an interest obligating them to pay its taxes cannot appeal under section 305.275(1)(b).

Donkers v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100458d (or.tax 9-20-2010) · filed 2010-09-20(1)(b)

Plaintiff does not meet the statutory requirements ORS 305.275. ... For tax year 2007-08 and 2008-09, Plaintiff did not own the subject property and had no interest in the subject property that obligated Plaintiff "to pay taxes imposed on the property."

Section 305.275(3) provides for an appeal to the Magistrate Division from a board order resulting from an appeal under ORS 309.100.

Heritage N.W. Prop. v. Deschutes Cnty., Tc-Md 100703c (or.tax 3-25-2011) · filed 2011-03-25(3)

ORS 305.275(3) states that "[t]he appeal under this section is from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed under ORS 309.100." ... Plaintiff here followed the statutory procedures for appealing its 2009-10 property tax assessment. Plaintiff did not follow those procedures with respect to the 2007-08 and 2008-09 tax years.

A person assessed taxes on someone else’s personal property may appeal under subsection (1) when the assessment creates personal liability that affects the person’s money.

Griffith v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2017-07-31(1)

Thus, even though the property Defendant assessed did not belong to Plaintiff, she incurred a personal liability from the assessment. That personal liability cost her money. That money is the property affected by Defendant’s act and the reason Plaintiff is aggrieved. Plaintiff meets the conditions to appeal under ORS 305.275(1).

Section 305.275(4) requires a county assessor to be aggrieved by a board of property tax appeals order to appeal it to the Magistrate Division.

Hidden Court LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-08-03(4)

The same logic this court applied with respect to appeals to the Regular Division under ORS 305.570 also applies with respect to appeals to the Magistrate Division under ORS 305.275. A county assessor must be aggrieved by an order of a board of property tax appeals to appeal it to the Magistrate Division, just as it must be aggrieved by a magistrate’s decision to appeal it to the Regular Division.

Section 305.275 allows an appeal by a person who alleges specific pecuniary harm from an assessor’s actions or omissions and is obligated by a financing agreement to pay taxes on property the person does not own.

Lincoln Commons, LLC v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2021-04-30(1)(a), (1)(b)

Plaintiff is aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) based on its allegation that Defendant’s actions and omissions resulted in specific pecuniary harm to Plaintiff. Even though Plaintiff does not own the subject property, Plaintiff claims that it was obliged to pay taxes on the property through a contract, lease, or intervening instrumentality; specifically, Plaintiff was obligated under the financing agreement with its lender to pay the taxes. (Ptf’s Resp at 6.) Thus, Plaintiff’s claim also satisfies ORS 305.275(1)(b).

A lessee obligated by its lease to pay property taxes can be aggrieved by an assessor’s partial denial of an exemption claim.

Ferment Brewing Co. v. Hood River County Assessor · filed 2022-09-15(1)

Plaintiff presented a lease with Key Development that imposes on Plaintiff an obligation to pay its share of real property taxes. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Key Development notified Plaintiff that it owed taxes. Thus, the court is satisfied at this stage that Plaintiff has demonstrated an obligation to pay property taxes within the meaning of ORS 305.275(1)(b). ... Defendant appears to have denied Plaintiff’s 2019-20 EZ claim in part. The court concludes that Plaintiff is aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a).

Section 305.275 permits an appeal from a tax collector’s act or omission only if it affects the aggrieved person’s property.

Lowthian v. Department of Revenue · filed 1985-10-22(1)(d)

Whether or not that refusal may constitute an abuse of the tax collector’s discretion under ORS 311.250(2) to decide what is “essential” information, without an effect on the aggrieved person’s property the refusal is not reviewable by an appeal to the director under ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1) allows a taxpayer who obtains a peremptory writ under ORS 311.215 to appeal an assessor’s later refusal to add the property to the tax roll.

Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1990-01-31(1)

Because the legislature did not provide for taxpayer standing in ORS 305.275(1), but did provide for taxpayer standing in ORS 311.215, it seems likely that the legislature intended that a taxpayer in the position of the plaintiff here — who obtained a peremptory writ under ORS 311.215, but who ultimately failed to obtain the relief sought upon further consideration by the assessor under ORS 311.207, 311.209 and 311.211 — would be entitled to appeal under ORS 305.275(1) by reason of taxpayer standing alone. We emphasize that this ruling applies to a small class of cases, cases in which the claim is instituted by a taxpayer as a mandamus claim under ORS 311.215 to place omitted property on the tax roll, who obtains a peremptory writ and who later “loses” when the assessor declines to place the property on the tax roll.

A taxpayer dissatisfied with a county assessor’s addition of property to a tax statement must seek review by the Department of Revenue.

Taft Church of Evangelical Church of North America v. Department of Revenue · filed 1997-12-05(1)(c)

Under the pertinent statutes, ORS 305.275(l)(c) and 305.280(1), a taxpayer dissatisfied with an action of a county assessor adding property to a tax statement must seek review of that decision by the Department within 90 days after the act or omission of the assessor becomes known to the taxpayer, but in no event later than one year after the act or omission has occurred.

Section 305.275 permits a taxpayer to appeal an adverse act, including the addition of property to the assessment roll.

Adair v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-01-29

Even if that route of appeal is not exclusive, the other statutes on appeals and time limits thereon, ORS 305.275 and ORS 305.280, require that appeals be made within 90 days of a taxpayer’s actual knowledge of an adverse act, but in no event later than one year from the adverse act. Here, the adverse act was the addition of the property to the assessment roll.

Section 305.275 allows a person to appeal a tax department action affecting their property when no other statutory right to appeal that action exists.

Fackler v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-11-22(1)

Under ORS 305.275, “[a]ny person may appeal under this subsection to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court” if certain criteria are met. ... However, if any amount withheld from Joan Fackler’s wages was used to pay such liability, that application is an act adverse to Joan Fackler and affects her property. Further, in April 2003 she had no other statutory right to appeal as to that act.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to challenge an assessor’s act or determination within the time limits of ORS 305.280, even if the assessor’s notice gives an incorrect reason.

Clifford Parsons, Trustee v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2013-12-30

Acts and determinations of the type of which taxpayer was notified, whether taxpayer views them as correct or not and whether they are ultimately found to be correct or not, must be challenged under ORS 305.275 within the time restrictions of ORS 305.280.

Section 305.275(1) permits an appeal when a taxpayer is aggrieved by interest imposed by a tax collector and has no other statutory right of appeal.

KAH Properties, LLC v. Coos County Assessor · filed 2020-12-10(1)

Because that interest was imposed by the tax collector under ORS 311.505(2), Plaintiff is aggrieved by the tax collector’s action. See ORS 305.275(1). The parties have not identified, and the court is not aware of, any statute giving Plaintiff a right of appeal to another court. See id. ... Because Plaintiff’s claim satisfies ORS 305.275 and there is no countervailing statute, this court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 305.275(1)(a)(C) allows an appeal of an assessor’s special assessment decision; without an application and an assessor determination, the court has nothing to review.

Curti v. Josephine County Assessor · filed 2024-04-05(1)(a)(C)

Without an application and determination by Defendant, there is nothing for the court to review. See ORS 305.275(1)(a)(C) (authorizing appeal by person who is “aggrieved by an affected by an act, omission, order or determination of * * * [a] county assessor or other county official, including but not limited to * * * the denial of special assessment under a special assessment statute * * *”).

Section 305.275(1) provides an appeal to the Department of Revenue director for a county assessor’s act or omission affecting property when no other statutory appeal is available.

Westlake Homeowners Ass'n v. Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners · filed 1988-12-07(1)

What ORS 305.275 does expressly provide is that: ... “which affects his property and for which there is no other statutory right of appeal, may appeal to the Director of the Department of Revenue in the manner provided by this section.” (ORS 305.275(1).) Plaintiff did not use this statute.

Section 305.275(5) requires an appeal petition to identify the property and relief sought; an amended petition adding a property and tax year does not relate back when the earlier petitions gave no notice of those claims.

National Manufacturing, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1991-04-16(5)

ORS 305.275(5) requires that all appeals shall be taken by filing a petition. ... The petitions filed by plaintiff in 1989 covered only one property account (No. R41490-0950) for the 1988-89 and 1989-90 tax years. ... Plaintiffs “amended” petition added a second property (account) and an additional year (1987-88). The “amended” petition cannot relate back to the earlier petitions. There was nothing in the earlier petitions from which defendant could infer the claims added by the “amended petition.”

Section 305.275 requires an appeal petition to describe the property being challenged; property omitted from the petition is not under appeal.

Benjamin Franklin Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue · filed 1990-11-26(5)

The petition must describe the property to which the appeal relates. ORS 305.275(5). ... The assessed value of any property not described in the petition is not considered challenged.

Section 305.275(5) requires an appeal petition to state the relief requested; in a property tax appeal involving true cash value, that relief is a reduction by a stated dollar amount.

Mid Oil Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1984-02-13(5)

In a property tax case involving true cash value, the “relief requested” is a reduction of “X” dollars.

Section 305.275(1)(c) requires appeals of disqualification from special assessment to be made directly to the Department of Revenue.

Glancy v. Department of Revenue · filed 1991-12-23(1)(c)

Appeals of disqualification for special assessment must be made directly to the Department of Revenue. ORS 305.275(1)(c).

Section 305.275 is part of the statutory procedure that waives the state’s sovereign immunity for administrative and judicial challenges to taxation.

Anderson v. Department of Revenue · filed 1992-03-26

On the other hand, tax refund statutes and ORS 305.275, 305.410, and 305.445 provide a limited waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity to claims against the state arising under the revenue and tax laws by creating a procedure for administrative and judicial challenges to state taxation.

Section 305.275(1) permits an appeal from an act or omission of the department or assessor only when no other statutory right of appeal exists.

Beal v. Oregon Department of Revenue · filed 1994-04-29(1)

Furthermore, ORS 305.275 provides a right to appeal from an “act or omission” of the department or the assessor only when “there is no other statutory right of appeal.” ORS 305.275(1). ORS 294.485 provides another right of appeal.

Section 305.275 provides an appeal right only when no other statute provides one for the grievance; liability notices under ORS 316.207 must be appealed under that statute.

Baden v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-07-11

“The appeal right of ORS 305.275 ... applies when „there is no other statutory right of appeal for the grievance.‟” Id. at 72. “For persons potentially liable under ORS 316.207, there is an „other statutory right.‟ It is the right to appeal stated in ORS 316.207, which contains its own time limit provision.” Id. ... Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the Notices within the time allowed by ORS 316.207, and there is no other statutory authority to grant an appeal to a notice of assessment.

Section 305.275(1)(c) does not permit an appeal when another statutory right of appeal exists for the grievance, even if that right is not yet available because no assessment has issued.

Stewart v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-11(1)(c)

Likewise, Plaintiffs had no right of appeal under ORS 305.275(1) because there was another ... “statutory right of appeal for the grievance” under ORS 305.265(15). See ORS 305.275(1)(c).

ORS 305.275 does not provide the appeal procedure for an omitted property assessment.

Libertybank v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 101036d (or.tax 2-9-2011) · filed 2011-02-09

Further, this court has previously concluded that ORS 305.275 and ORS 305.280 are not applicable appeal provisions for appeal from an omitted property assessment.

Section 305.275 allows taxpayers to appeal an income tax assessment before paying it, providing a predeprivation hearing that satisfies due process.

Atkins v. Department of Revenue · filed 1994-05-04

Under Oregon’s statutory scheme, taxpayers who wish to contest an income tax assessment need not pay the tax before appealing to the Department of Revenue. ... Oregon’s statutory scheme provides taxpayers with a predeprivation hearing consistent with the requirements of due process.

Section 305.275 does not provide an administrative appeal remedy when a taxpayer seeks to enforce a property tax foreclosure judgment and redemption rights rather than challenge an assessor’s act.

Petersen v. Gangle · filed 1995-07-19

See ORS 305.275; ORS 305.560. That argument is misplaced, because plaintiff is not seeking relief from an act of the Lane County Assessor. As we noted above, plaintiff is attempting to enforce the 1991 judgment and his statutory right of redemption under ORS 312.120. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 305.275 governs normal tax appeals involving the taxpayer and county assessor; using its petition form does not make a petition under section 306.115 an appeal under section 305.275.

McGill v. Department of Revenue · filed 1996-09-06

That statute implies that in normal tax appeals under 305.275, the taxpayer and the county assessor are parties to the appeal. However, following the form for petitions under ORS 305.275 does not make a petition under ORS 306.115 an appeal under ORS 305.275.

An appeal of an assessor’s decision on an act of God tax proration application must be made with the Department of Revenue; an appeal to the Board of Property Tax Appeals is ineffective.

Schellin v. Department of Revenue · filed 2000-04-07(1)

However, that appeal attempt was ineffectual because the law clearly requires, and her act of God application directed, that such appeals must be made with the Department of Revenue.

Section 305.275(1) does not allow an appeal for a tax year before the department has issued an assessment for that year.

Backman v. Department of Revenue · filed 1999-10-25(1)

As a preliminary matter, the court has dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint as to tax year 1992 because Defendant did not yet assess the account for that year. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, included in its Answer filed on April 29, 1998, is granted pursuant to ORS 305.265(15) and ORS 305.275(1).

Section 305.275(1)(a) limits appealable acts, omissions, orders, and determinations to those of the listed tax authorities, excluding decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court.

Wynne v. Lincoln County Assessor, Tc-Md 080231c (or.tax 9-18-2008) · filed 2008-09-18(1)(a)

The court, therefore, can hear appeals under ORS 305.280 only if the act, omission, order, or determination Plaintiff is appealing from was issued by one of the four entities listed in ORS 305.275 (1)(a). Because the Oregon Supreme Court is not among the entities listed in ORS 305.275 (1)(a), the court has no jurisdiction under ORS 305.280 to hear an appeal for the 2004-05 tax year, regardless of timing.

Section 305.275(1) permits an appeal after a notice of assessment; an appeal filed before assessment is premature.

Serrano-Reyes v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100941c (or.tax 11-17-2010) · filed 2010-11-17(1)

Rather, it is the notice of assessment that entitles a taxpayer to file an appeal with the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. ORS 305.265(15); ORS 305.275(1). Plaintiff appealed before a deficiency was even issued, and to date, no assessment has been issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff's appeal for tax 2006 was filed prematurely and must be dismissed.

Section 305.275(1) allows a taxpayer to appeal to the Magistrate Division after a notice of assessment; an appeal filed before assessment is premature.

Nungaray v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101005c (or.tax 11-29-2010) · filed 2010-11-29(1)

Rather, it is the notice of assessment that entitles a taxpayer to file an appeal with the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. ORS 305.265(15); ORS 305.275(1). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's appeal for tax 2008 was filed prematurely and must be dismissed.

Section 305.275 does not allow an appeal to the Magistrate Division from an Employment Department action.

Danielson Contractors v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 091470c (or.tax 1-4-2011) · filed 2011-01-04

See also ORS 305.275 (which does not include actions of the Employment Department in the list of actions that can be appealed to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court).

Section 305.275(1) allows an appeal to the Tax Court from an assessor’s exemption determination when no other statutory appeal is available.

YWCA of Greater Portland v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2013-04-08(1)

Because Plaintiff is not requesting a value reduction, the board of property tax appeals has no jurisdiction to handle petitions related to exemption of property. Plaintiff’s appeal rights are found in ORS 305.275 and 305.280.

Section 305.275 does not allow a separate appeal from a distraint warrant used to collect a tax assessment.

Perkins v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-03

Distraint warrants, like garnishments, are collection matters and under Patton and Utgard, they are not considered “a separate action of the department from which appeal may be taken under ORS 305.275.”

Section 305.275(1) permits an appeal of a department determination about an installment agreement when the taxpayer is aggrieved, the determination could affect the taxpayer’s property, and no other statutory appeal is available.

Christensen v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-03-23(1)

If taxpayer proves his claim, he would be “aggrieved” by a “determination” of the department in its “administration of the revenue and tax laws of this state.” ORS 305.275(1)(a)(A). Such a determination could affect the property of taxpayer if, absent an installment agreement meeting statutory “rights,” garnishments or liens would be filed against property of taxpayer. ORS 305.275(1)(b). Finally, there appears to be no other statutory right of appeal mentioned in ORS 305.890(1) or elsewhere outside ORS 305.275. Thus, the condition found in ORS 305.275(1)(c) is satisfied.

Section 305.275(1)(a) allows an appeal based on an act, omission, order, or determination of an enumerated entity; the IRS is not one of those entities.

Davis v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2023-12-06(1)(a)

Plaintiff’s Complaint challenges actions taken by a federal agency, namely the IRS. Thus, the claims made in Plaintiff’s Complaint lie outside of this court’s jurisdiction. See also ORS 305.275(1)(a) (IRS is not listed).

Section 305.275(1)(a) permits appeals based on acts or decisions of the listed tax authorities; actions by DCBS are outside that list.

Hefflinger v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2024-03-06(1)(a)

Indeed, the statute authorizing appeal to this court contemplates that the person appealing is “aggrieved by and affected by an act, omission, order or determination of: [t]he Department of Revenue in its administration of the revenue and tax laws of this state; [a] county board of property tax appeals * * *; [a] county assessor * * *; or [a] tax collector.” ORS 305.275(1)(a). DCBS does not appear on that list.

Section 305.275(1)(a)(A) does not extend the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to challenges to tax refund offsets for debts owed to other state agencies.

Hefflinger v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2025-10-09(1)(a)(A)

However, the court finds nothing indicating an intention to include challenges to offsets within the scope of this court’s jurisdiction by referring to “revenue and tax” laws.

Section 305.275 gives a taxpayer 90 days to appeal a retroactively estimated market value after notice of disqualification.

Mark v. Department of Revenue · filed 1998-05-26

To afford the taxpayer an opportunity to contest the retroactively estimated market value, the assessor must notify the taxpayer of that value in the notice of disqualification. The taxpayer then has 90 days to appeal under ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(2)’s general right to appeal does not override a separate statutory filing deadline or add an actual-knowledge requirement to that deadline.

Farrell v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 091553d (or.tax 2-18-2010) · filed 2010-02-18(2)

ORS 305.275 (2) begins with the phrase "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law." ORS 305.280 (1) "otherwise" provides that an appeal of a determination "shall be filed within 90 days after the date a copy" of the determination has been served on the taxpayer. Given the statutory provision of ORS 305.280 (1), Plaintiff cannot invoke the additional requirement of actual knowledge that is not part of the statutory provision applicable to his appeal.

Section 305.275(1)'s 1999 amendment directs litigants where to file appeals and does not repeal the prepayment requirement for Regular Division income tax appeals.

Lowry v. Department of Revenue · filed 2000-10-05(1)

The legislative history of that bill reveals that the change made to ORS 305.275(1) was merely a housekeeping matter intended to more specifically direct litigants regarding where to file their appeals. Nothing in the legislative history demonstrated an intent on the part of the legislature to repeal the requirement that a taxpayer must pay taxes, penalties, and interest before filing an income tax appeal in the Regular Division.

Section 305.275(3) requires a taxpayer to appeal to the board before appealing to the Tax Court when the board has authority to hear the matter.

23rd & Flanders LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2003-06-04(3)

Furthermore, ORS 305.275(3) specifically requires a taxpayer to appeal to the board if the board has authority to hear the matter.

Section 305.275(3) permits an appeal to the Tax Court from a board order resulting from a petition under ORS 309.100.

Butte Dev. Co. v. Linn County Assessor, Tc-Md 070746c (or.tax 7-31-2008) · filed 2008-07-31(3)

ORS 305.275 authorizes a taxpayer aggrieved by an order of the board to appeal to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court. ORS 305.275 (3) specifies that "[t]he appeal under this section is from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed under ORS 309.100 ."

Section 305.275 generally requires an order from the county board before a taxpayer appeals a property value to the tax court.

Dallaire v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080036c (or.tax 2-29-2008) · filed 2008-02-29(1)(a)(B), (3)

An appeal to the tax court is typically from an order of the board. ORS 305.275 (1)(a)(B), (3). Without such an order, the court would generally lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Section 305.275(3) generally requires a taxpayer to appeal a property tax valuation to BOPTA before appealing to the Tax Court.

Gray v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc 4810 (or.tax 4-8-2008) · filed 2008-04-08(3)

The general rules is that a taxpayer must appeal to BOPTA under ORS 309.100 before an appeal is allowed to the Tax Court. ORS 305.275 (3). Here, taxpayer did not appeal to BOPTA. Accordingly, unless taxpayer falls into an exception to the general rule, her appeal must be dismissed.

Appeals to the Magistrate Division ordinarily follow an appeal to the county board; a taxpayer who did not petition the board must satisfy an exception under ORS 305.288.

Doss v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 080170c (or.tax 5-16-2008) · filed 2008-05-16(3)

By statute, appeals to the magistrate division of the tax court are "from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed under ORS 309.100." ORS 305.275 (3). ... On the facts before it, the court concludes that Defendant's request for dismissal should be granted because Plaintiffs did not file a petition with the board before the December 31, 2007, statutory deadline, and they have not satisfied the requirements of ORS 305.288 that would allow the court to consider reducing the value of their property notwithstanding their failure to petition the board.

Section 305.275 allows appeals from ORS 309.100 board orders and from other board actions.

Department of Revenue v. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons, P.C. · filed 2001-01-05(1), (3)

ORS 305.275 is ambiguous. Subsection (1) indicates that appeals under the section are from “other than an order of the board” whereas subsection (3) states that an appeal “under this section is from an order of the board.” The court does not believe the legislature intended a change from the prior practice, which allowed appeals from ORS 309.100 orders and appeals from other board actions.

Section 305.275 does not allow a taxpayer to appeal a collection action when the taxpayer had another statutory right to appeal the underlying assessment, even if the taxpayer failed to use that right properly.

Patton v. Department of Revenue · filed 2005-04-21

In addition, ORS 305.275 is unavailable by its terms because taxpayer had, as to the basic dispute, another statutory right of appeal. Taxpayer’s failure to correctly pursue that route of appeal (from the notice of assessment) does not create a right to appeal an act of collection.

Section 305.275(3) requires a value appeal to the magistrate division to come from a board order following an appeal under ORS 309.100.

Bonn v. Clatsop County Assessor, Tc-Md 090145c (or.tax 6-12-2009) · filed 2009-06-12(3)

A value appeal to the Tax Court is from an order of the board. ORS 309.110 (7) (providing for an appeal from a board order to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court); ORS 305.275 (3) (providing that an appeal to the magistrate division under ORS 305.275 "is from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed under ORS 309.100 * * * .").

Section 305.275(3) requires a property value appeal to the Tax Court to come from an order of the county board of property tax appeals.

Horn v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080630c (or.tax 9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19(3)

The appeal to the Tax Court is filed with the Magistrate Division, as provided in ORS 305.275 (1), and "is from an order of the board as a result of [an] appeal filed under ORS 309.100 [,]" as set forth in ORS 305.275 (3). ... The court concludes that Plaintiff's appeal must be dismissed because Plaintiff did not appeal to the board before appealing to the Tax Court and has not satisfied the requirements of ORS 305.288 .

Section 305.275(3) requires an appeal to the Tax Court to come from a county board of property tax appeals order.

Bakum v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080669c (or.tax 9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19(3)

The appeal to the Tax Court is filed with the Magistrate Division, as provided in ORS 305.275 (1), and "is from an order of the board as a result of [an] appeal filed under ORS 309.100 [,]" as set forth in ORS 305.275 (3). ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs' appeal must be dismissed because Plaintiffs did not appeal to the board before appealing to the Tax Court, and they have not satisfied the requirements of ORS 305.288 .

Section 305.275(3) requires a taxpayer to appeal a property valuation to the county board before appealing to the Tax Court.

Dobranski v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 081188c (or.tax 3-5-2009) · filed 2009-03-05(3)

The court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' appeal because they did not appeal to the board as required by ORS 305.275 and they do not fall into either of the exceptions provided in ORS 305.288 .

Section 305.275(3) precludes an appeal to the Tax Court’s magistrate division when the taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA.

Standley v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 101302c (or.tax 5-10-2011) · filed 2011-05-10(3)

Because there was no appeal to BOPTA before the appeal was filed with this court, the statutorily prescribed process of appeal was not followed. See generally ORS 309.100(1) (authorizing property owners to file petitions with BOPTA); ORS 309.026(2) (authorizing BOPTA to hear requests for reductions in assessed value, real market value and maximum assessed value); ORS 305.275(3) (precluding a taxpayer from appealing to the magistrate division of the Tax Court if the taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA).

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Magistrate Division when the taxpayer may appeal to the county board.

North River Boats v. Douglas County Assessor and Department of Revenue · filed 2012-09-18(3)

For most appeals, the first step is to file a petition with the county board. ... ORS 305.275(3) (precluding appeals to the magistrate ... division if a taxpayer may appeal to the board).

Section 305.275(3) bars a taxpayer who can appeal to the county board from appealing directly to the Tax Court’s magistrate division.

Dawson v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2011-12-20(3)

Because there was no appeal to the Board before the appeal was filed with this court, the statutorily prescribed process of appeal was not followed. ... Such appeals are governed by ORS 305.275(3) and ORS 305.280(4). As explained above, when that process is not timely and properly followed, the taxpayer (and the court) are limited to the provisions of ORS 305.288.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal under that section when the taxpayer could appeal to the Board of Property Tax Appeals.

Coleman v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-04-25(3)

ORS 305.275(3) states: “If a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed under this section.”1 Plaintiffs appeal from a property tax statement for residential property identified as Account R134315, which was appealable to BOPTA under ORS 309.100. ... Under such circumstances, the court finds that Defendant’s Motion must be granted.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal under that section when the taxpayer may appeal to the Board of Property Tax Appeals under ORS 309.100.

Cogan v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2013-07-29(3)

ORS 305.275(3) states: “If a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed under this section.”1 Plaintiff appeals from a property tax statement for the residential subject property, which was appealable to BOPTA under ORS 309.100. ... Under such circumstances, the court finds that Defendant’s Motion must be granted.

Section 305.275(3) requires a timely appeal to the board of property tax appeals before an appeal of that property may proceed in Tax Court.

Jeld-Wen Inc. v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2013-07-31(3)

Defendants requested dismissal of Plaintiff’s appeal of Account R34113 for the 2012-13 tax year because Plaintiff failed to timely appeal that account to the board of property tax appeals as required by ORS 305.275(3). In an Order issued May 16, 2013, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal of Account R34113 for the 2012-13 tax year. ... IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiff’s appeal of property identified as Account R34113 for the 2012-13 tax year is dismissed.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct Tax Court appeal when the taxpayer could have appealed to the county board of property tax appeals.

Carrato v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-07-11(3)

For tax year 2013-14, Plaintiffs have not shown that they appealed the real market value of their property to BOPTA, and followed the appeal process provided by ORS 305.275. See 305.275(3) (“[i]f a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed under this section”).

Section 305.275(3) generally bars the Tax Court from hearing matters that could have been appealed to the county board of property tax appeals.

Triple P, Inc. v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2015-06-15(3)

Generally, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider matters that could have been appealed to the county board of property tax appeals (BOPTA). See ORS 305.275(3); Gray v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC 4810, WL 933072 (Apr 8, 2008).

Section 305.275(3) allows a taxpayer dissatisfied with a county board of property tax appeals order to appeal to the Tax Court; the taxpayer must first pursue a board appeal.

Oregon TDM, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2016-09-20(3)

A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the BOPTA order may then appeal to this court under ORS 305.275 within 30 days of the date of the order. ... There is no evidence that Plaintiff appealed to BOPTA for any for the years at issue, and the court’s authority to correct the tax rolls for the current and previous two tax years (2015-16, 2014-15, and 2013-14) does not extend to the tax years appealed by Plaintiff.

Section 305.275(3) generally requires taxpayers to bring property valuation disputes to BOPTA before appealing to the Tax Court.

Gray v. Linn County Assessor · filed 2018-01-09(3)

Plaintiff faces an obstacle to her appeal of the 2015–16 year—the final year in which value for the pole barn was added—because she did not timely appeal to BOPTA. Generally, appeals of valuation questions must be brought to BOPTA before they come to this court. See ORS 305.275(3); Gray v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC 4810, WL 933072 (Or Tax Apr 8, 2008).

Section 305.275(3) provides for an appeal to the magistrate division from a county board order; taxpayers who do not appeal to the board have not followed that appeals process.

Singh v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2015-09-18(3)

See ORS 305.275(3) (providing that an appeal to the magistrate division is an appeal “from an order of the board”); ORS 305.280(4). Plaintiffs have not shown that they appealed the real market value of the subject property to BOPTA, or followed the appeals process provided by ORS 305.275 for any of the tax years at issue.

Section 305.275 generally requires a taxpayer to appeal to the county board of property tax appeals before appealing a property's real market value to the Tax Court.

Roofener v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2016-06-24(3)

If a taxpayer fails to timely appeal to BOPTA, then this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal under ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Tax Court when a taxpayer could have appealed to the county board of property tax appeals but did not.

Guadalajara Grill v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2017-10-17(3)

Generally, taxpayers who could have appealed to BOPTA, but did not, have no right of appeal to this court.

Section 305.275(3) generally requires taxpayers eligible to appeal to a county board of property tax appeals to do so before appealing to the Magistrate Division.

Lee v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2016-02-01(3)

A taxpayer who has a claim that might be brought before a county board of property tax appeals generally must exercise that right before appealing to the Magistrate Division.

Section 305.275(3) permits an appeal from a BOPTA decision to the Tax Court, but that route is foreclosed when the taxpayer did not pursue a BOPTA appeal for the relevant year.

Richardson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-19(3)

Because taxpayers did not pursue an appeal in 2001 from a BOPTA decision, there exists no other statutory right of appeal to this court for that year. The statutory right under ORS 305.275 was foreclosed, and taxpayers did not seek relief under ORS 306.115.

Section 305.275(3) generally bars an appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer could have appealed to the board of property tax appeals.

Walker v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2017-04-07(3)

Generally, no appeal to this court is allowed where a taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA. ... Here, Plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to appeal to BOPTA. Therefore, the court must dismiss their Complaint unless it has jurisdiction under ORS 305.288.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer could appeal to BOPTA but did not.

WLL P.C. v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2017-11-14(3)

If a taxpayer does not appeal to BOPTA, however, then no appeal to this court under ORS 305.275 is allowed.

Section 305.275(3) provides for an appeal to the Tax Court’s magistrate division from an order of the county board of property tax appeals.

Salzinger v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2016-03-30(3)

A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the BOPTA order may then appeal to this court under ORS 305.275 within 30 days of the date of the Order. See ORS 305.275(3) (providing that an appeal to the magistrate division is an ... appeal “from an order of the board”); ORS 305.280(4). Plaintiffs have not shown that they appealed the real market value of the subject property to BOPTA, or followed the appeals process provided by ORS 305.275 for any of the tax years at issue.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer may appeal to the board of property tax appeals.

Cold Mountain Storage, LLC v. Umatilla County Assessor · filed 2016-08-09(3)

ORS 305.275(3) precludes an appeal to this court where “a taxpayer may appeal to the board of property tax appeals under ORS 309.100.”

Section 305.275(3) bars a taxpayer who could have appealed to the county board of property tax appeals from appealing directly to the Magistrate Division without doing so.

Yang v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2016-10-11(3)

Here, Plaintiff admittedly did not appeal to the board of property tax appeals and so does not have a right to appeal to this court under ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(3) does not allow a taxpayer to appeal to the Magistrate Division if the taxpayer could have appealed to the board of property tax appeals but did not.

Seven Hills Properties 19 LLC v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2016-10-11(3)

There is no right of appeal to the Magistrate Division under ORS 305.275 for taxpayers who might have appealed to the board of property tax appeals but did not.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct Tax Court appeal of a property valuation dispute when the taxpayer can seek relief from BOPTA.

AKS LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-07-05(3)

The relief Plaintiffs are seeking is a challenge to real market value and assessed value and could have been filed with BOPTA. ORS 309.026(2)(a), (b); ORS 309.100. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to provide the relief sought by Plaintiffs. ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275 permits an appeal to the Magistrate Division from an unsatisfactory BOPTA decision, but that route is unavailable when the taxpayer did not seek BOPTA review.

Work v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-07-20(1)(a)(3)

An unsatisfactory BOPTA decision may then be appealed to the Magistrate Division of this court. ORS 305.275(1)(a)(3). Taxpayer has not alleged that he petitioned for review before the BOPTA for tax year 2010-11. Nor, considering the fact that taxpayer filed his complaint in the Magistrate Division on May 2, 2016, does it appear that he could have. This route to relief is foreclosed as to tax year 2010-11.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct appeal to the Magistrate Division when the taxpayer may appeal to BOPTA.

Dabreo v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2020-07-27(3)

Consequently, ORS 305.275(3) precludes the court from considering Plaintiffs’ appeal.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct Tax Court appeal when the taxpayer could have appealed the claim to the BOPTA.

AKS LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-04-18(3)

However, ORS 305.275(3) provides: “If a taxpayer may appeal to the [BOPTA] under [ORS] 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed [in the Tax Court].” ORS 305.275(3). Therefore, if taxpayers could have brought their claim before the BOPTA, the court must dis- miss their appeal in TC 5308 for failure to do so.

Section 305.275(3) requires taxpayers disputing a county’s real market value or maximum assessed value determination to appeal to BOPTA before appealing to the Tax Court.

NW Northrup Properties, LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2021-08-16(3)

A taxpayer that disputes the county’s determination of the RMV or the MAV of their property must appeal to ... BOPTA before the taxpayer can file an appeal with this tax court. ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct Tax Court appeal when a taxpayer has a right to appeal to the county Board of Property Tax Appeals.

Woody Family Properties, LLC v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2021-01-21(3)

“If a taxpayer may appeal to [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100,” then no appeal may be taken to this court. ORS 305.275(3). Plaintiffs had the right to appeal the subject property’s 2006-07 MAV to the BOPTA in 2006 but did not do so. Plaintiffs’ current appeal of their 2006-07 MAV is untimely.

Section 305.275(3) requires a taxpayer disputing real market value to appeal to the Board of Property Tax Appeals before appealing to the tax court.

Shevtsov v. Clackamas County Assesor · filed 2022-03-10(3)

A taxpayer that disputes real market value must appeal to BOPTA before filing an appeal to this tax court. ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) bars a Tax Court appeal when a taxpayer could have appealed to BOPTA but did not, unless the taxpayer qualifies for relief under ORS 305.288.

Vollertsen v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2021-10-20(3)

Plaintiffs failed to file an appeal with BOPTA for the 2019-20 tax year and may not, therefore, appeal to this court under ORS 305.275(3). For the court to order a change or correction to the 2019-20 tax year, Plaintiffs must meet the requirements of ORS 305.288.

Section 305.275(3) requires taxpayers to appeal to BOPTA before appealing to the Tax Court when a BOPTA appeal is available; the COVID-19 court order did not excuse that requirement.

Russell Fellows Properties, LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2022-11-15(3)

CJO 20-027 extended statutory time limitations to appeal to this court, however it did not extend deadlines to appeal to BOPTA nor relieve taxpayers from the requirement to appeal to BOPTA before appealing to this court under ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) allows a taxpayer to appeal a board of property tax appeals dismissal order to the Tax Court.

Shevtsov v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2022-01-12(3)

The text of the relevant statutes shows that an order of dismissal is an “order of the board” appealable to the court under ORS 305.275 and ORS 309.110(7).

A taxpayer who has not petitioned the county board of property tax appeals cannot use the usual route to appeal a property tax valuation to the Magistrate Division.

Helms Deep, LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2023-02-13(3)

That fact precluded an appeal to the Magistrate Division for tax year 2017-18 under the “usual” route pursuant to ORS 305.275(1)(a)(B). See ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) generally bars a Tax Court valuation appeal when the taxpayer could have appealed to the county board of property tax appeals but did not.

Liberty Spine & Pain Center, PC v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2024-01-09(3)

There is no general right of appeal to this court for valuation errors that could have been appealed to the board, but were not. See ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) generally bars a direct appeal to the Magistrate Division when the taxpayer could have appealed first to the Board of Property Tax Appeals.

Shevtsov v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2024-02-05(3)

If the taxpayer fails to first petition the BOPTA for relief, the taxpayer generally is prohibited from appealing directly to the Magistrate Division. See ORS 305.275(1) (stating general rule that a person “aggrieved by and affected by” certain actions of government involving property tax may appeal to Magistrate Division); ORS 305.275(3) (stating as an exception, “[i]f a taxpayer may appeal to the [BOPTA] under ORS 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed under this section.”). ... The court will grant the county’s motion with respect to Issue 3.

Section 305.275(3) bars a direct Tax Court appeal when an appeal may be taken to the board, but a taxpayer may appeal an error correction directly to the Tax Court.

Richter v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2024-03-15(3)

Defendant’s first affirmative defense seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s appeal because he did not appeal to the board for any of the tax years at issue. See ORS 305.275(3) (barring appeal to this court where an appeal may be taken to the board). ... Thus, Plaintiff correctly appealed the error correction notice to this court rather than the board.

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer could have appealed to the property tax appeals board but failed to do so.

Obsidian Self Storage LLC v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2025-02-12(3)

Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs failed to appeal to BOPTA, so their appeal may not proceed under ORS 305.275(3).

Section 305.275(3) bars an appeal to the Tax Court when the taxpayer could have appealed to the board, unless another statute permits the appeal.

Hopson v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2024-04-26(3)

As a result, her appeal is barred by ORS 305.275(3) unless another statute supports her requested relief.

Section 305.275(3) does not require PVAB review of a valuation issue tied to a timely appealed partial exemption disqualification when PVAB cannot decide the underlying exemption dispute.

Covenant Presbyterian Church v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2026-05-15(3)

ORS 305.275(3) does not require dismissal because Plaintiff did not have a PVAB remedy for the grievance actually asserted.

Section 305.275(3) precludes an appeal to the Magistrate Division when the taxpayer may appeal to the county board of property tax appeals.

Mitchell v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-07-15(3)

The first step is to file a petition with the local county Board where the property is located. ... ORS 305.275(3) (precluding appeals to Magistrate Division of Tax Court if taxpayer may appeal to Board). ... No such appeal was filed. ... Absent additional statutory authority, the court would lack jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ appeal.

Section 305.275 permits a property tax appeal by an affected property owner or a person whose interest in the property obligates them to pay its taxes.

Sherman v. Department of Revenue · filed 2003-07-24(1)(b)

Under ORS 305.275, appeal to this court is only available to persons who are the owners of property affected by an act, omission, or order of taxing authorities described in the statute or persons whose interest in property obligates them to pay taxes on the property.

Section 305.275 requires taxpayers to allege ownership of the rights at issue to establish standing to appeal their assessment.

Sherman v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-01-30

Accordingly, even if riparian rights existed and were damaged, taxpayers have not sufficiently alleged that they owned those rights so as to have standing to appeal under ORS 305.275, or that the rights were in a tax account properly before the court.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property's value to be aggrieved; a requested reduction that would not change the taxpayer's current taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Vilhauer v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080155d (or.tax 7-31-2008) · filed 2008-07-31(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... Plaintiffs have not alleged a real market value less than their maximum assessed value. ... Plaintiffs are not aggrieved.

Section 305.275(2) permits a taxpayer to appeal a board of equalization order when the taxpayer claims to be aggrieved, even if the board adopted a value the taxpayer and assessor agreed to recommend.

Windmill Inns of America, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1998-03-06(2)

The court concludes that the broad language in ORS 308.242 prevents use of that procedure from affecting the taxpayer’s appeal rights. Accordingly, the procedure cannot be viewed as a request by the taxpayer to the board. When the board issues its order, a taxpayer is aggrieved if the taxpayer claims it is aggrieved.

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 by an increased real market value while the property’s maximum assessed value remains lower.

Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1999-09-28

The court concludes that taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275. So long as the property’s maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to have an immediate claim of wrong; speculative future harm does not make the taxpayer aggrieved.

Kaady v. Department of Revenue · filed 2000-03-30

In requiring that taxpayers be “aggrieved” under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong. It did not intend that taxpayers could require the expenditure of public resources to litigate issues that might never arise.

Section 305.275 requires a property tax appellant to be aggrieved; a requested value reduction must lower the appellant’s taxes.

Vance v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080014c (or.tax 4-11-2008) · filed 2008-04-11

Although that assertion satisfies the 20 percent rule, Plaintiff suffers yet another legal impediment — he is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 . ... In the context of a property tax appeal, the requested reduction, if granted, must produce a corresponding reduction in taxes.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value is aggrieved under ORS 305.275 only if the reduction would lower the taxpayer's property taxes.

Sayenko v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080269c (or.tax 7-9-2008) · filed 2008-07-09

For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. ... Plaintiffs' $365,000 RMV reduction request will not lower their property taxes. ... Plaintiffs are therefore not aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not meet that requirement when it would not reduce assessed value or property taxes.

Paris v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080407c (or.tax 7-17-2008) · filed 2008-07-17

However, this court has long held that a requested reduction in RMV that will not produce a corresponding reduction in AV and property taxes warrants dismissal because the ultimate question of whether a taxpayer is aggrieved depends on whether the requested relief, if granted, will reduce property taxes. Plaintiffs' requested RMV reduction will not reduce their property taxes. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved.