Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.275

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 when a successful valuation challenge would have no immediate impact on the taxpayer.

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

Are taxpayers aggrieved by the actions of the assessor so as to come within ORS 305.275? ... Taxpayers admit that even if they were to be successful in their action, there would be no immediate impact on them. In such cases this court does not proceed.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing a property value to be aggrieved; a reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce property taxes.

Hoffmann v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080200c (or.tax 6-5-2008) · filed 2008-06-05

ORS 305.275 2 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs are not aggrieved because a reduction in their property's RMV to $270,000 would not reduce Plaintiffs' property taxes and Plaintiffs, therefore, are not aggrieved.

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

Dittman v. Yamhill County Assessor, Tc-Md 080335c (or.tax 7-24-2008) · filed 2008-07-24

Reducing the RMV to $262,500 would not reduce Plaintiff's AV or property taxes, and under a long line of cases including Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 (2000); Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 50 (1999), Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 .

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing to the Tax Court magistrate division to be aggrieved by a department action; withdrawing the only challenge defeats standing.

Ruff v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080034c (or.tax 3-27-2008) · filed 2008-03-27(1)(a)

Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed because Plaintiff no longer challenges an act, omission or determination of the department and is therefore not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 .

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested reduction in real market value that would not reduce property taxes does not establish standing.

Paris v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2008-11-05

Under ORS 305.275 , for the court to have jurisdiction over a taxpayer's claim, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved by and affected by an act, omission or determination" of the department, BOPTA, the county assessor, or a tax collector. ... The court does not have jurisdiction to hear taxpayers' appeal because taxpayers are not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 .

Section 305.275(1)(b) requires a person appealing an assessment to be aggrieved; a later purchaser who neither owned the property on the assessment date nor owed that year's taxes lacks standing to appeal.

Pusch v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090342b (or.tax 7-16-2009) · filed 2009-07-16(1)(b)

Because Plaintiff was not the owner on the assessment date and was not responsible for any the tax bill, he is not aggrieved for the 2007-08 tax year. ORS 305.275 (1)(b) (2007). As a result, Plaintiff has no standing to bring this appeal.

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

May v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080466c (or.tax 8-21-2008) · filed 2008-08-21

A reduction in RMV will not reduce Plaintiff's MAV and AV and, importantly, will not reduce her property taxes. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 , and the appeal must be dismissed.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing property value to be aggrieved; a reduction in real market value that would not reduce property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Knoll v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080514c (or.tax 9-4-2008) · filed 2008-09-04

The court concludes that Plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed because Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 , in that a successful appeal of Plaintiff's RMV (lowering that value to $280,000) will not reduce Plaintiff's AV or property taxes, and, under prior case law cited above, a taxpayer is not aggrieved if a successful appeal of property value will not result in a reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in property value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce property taxes.

Bierwagen v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080423c (or.tax 9-16-2008) · filed 2008-09-16

ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. ... For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV would not reduce Plaintiffs property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires taxpayers to be aggrieved by the tax amounts in dispute; a reduction in real market value that leaves taxable assessed value unchanged does not satisfy that requirement.

Randolph v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080287b (or.tax 9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19

This proposal does not meet the statutory requirements of ORS 305.275 (2005) in that Plaintiffs are not aggrieved with certain tax amounts in dispute.

Section 305.275 requires a person appealing an assessor’s action to be aggrieved by an act, omission, order, or determination; without an exemption application or denial, the person is not aggrieved.

Conservancy v. Josephine County Assessor, Tc-Md 080371c (or.tax 10-28-2008) · filed 2008-10-28(1)(a)(C)

There is no indication that Plaintiff filed an exemption application in 2007, or that any such request was denied by the assessor. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not aggrieved for tax year 2007-08.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested reduction in assessed value that the law does not allow does not satisfy that requirement.

Martin v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080494c (or.tax 2-9-2009) · filed 2009-02-09

Defendant has requested that Plaintiff's appeal for 2007-08 be dismissed because she is not aggrieved. Specifically, Defendant asserts in its motion that "[p]laintiff has not alleged facts showing that plaintiff is "aggrieved' within the meaning of ORS 305.275 because plaintiff has requested a reduction in maximum assessed value that is contrary to ORS 308.146 ." The court agrees, although Plaintiff's actual requested relief concerns AV.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in property value must reduce property taxes.

Sheffield v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 090001c (or.tax 3-11-2009) · filed 2009-03-11

ORS 305.275 1 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing a property value to be aggrieved, which means the requested reduction would lower property taxes.

Strader v. Clatsop County Assessor, Tc-Md 090834c (or.tax 9-9-2009) · filed 2009-09-09(1)(a)

This court has previously ruled, on numerous occasions, that the statutory requirement found in ORS 305.275 that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" means that the requested reduction in value will reduce property taxes.

Section 305.275(1) requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce property taxes.

Sullivan v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080531c (or.tax 8-26-2008) · filed 2008-08-26(1)

ORS 305.275 (1) requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. ... The same rationale applies to the present matter, and under the existing tax scheme, Plaintiff is not presently aggrieved.

A taxpayer is aggrieved only if the alleged real market value is lower than the property's maximum assessed value.

Gissel v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080512d (or.tax 10-6-2008) · filed 2008-10-06(1)(a)

For a taxpayer to be aggrieved, the alleged real market value must be lower than the maximum assessed value. ... Plaintiff has not alleged a real market value less than his maximum assessed value. ... Plaintiff is not aggrieved.

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Robert C. Luton Trust v. County Assessor, Tc-Md 080485b (or.tax 10-10-2008) · filed 2008-10-10

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2005).

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a taxpayer is not aggrieved by a disputed real market value when the property's maximum assessed value is lower.

Schlumpberger v. Columbia County Assessor, Tc-Md 080601b (or.tax 10-24-2008) · filed 2008-10-24

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

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under section 305.275 when reducing real market value would not affect the property's assessed value or tax due.

Strub v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080176b (or.tax 11-21-2008) · filed 2008-11-21

When the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Rafnel v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080331b (or.tax 11-28-2008) · filed 2008-11-28

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

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a taxpayer is not aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Holder v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 080360b (or.tax 2-5-2009) · filed 2009-02-05

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2007).

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

Coste v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 090093c (or.tax 6-12-2009) · filed 2009-06-12

The other problem with Plaintiff's appeal is that she is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 , because the requested reduction in RMV does not reduce Plaintiff's property taxes. Where a reduction in RMV will not reduce taxes, this court has ruled that the taxpayer is not aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal a property assessment; a taxpayer who agrees with the value on the rolls does not meet that requirement.

Goldberg v. Crook County Assessor, Tc-Md 090869c (or.tax 8-28-2009) · filed 2009-08-28

Therefore, because there is no disagreement as to the value on the assessment and tax rolls for tax year 2008-09, Plaintiff does not allege to be aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 , and the appeal of that account is subject to dismissal.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Meckes v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080504b (or.tax 10-10-2008) · filed 2008-10-10

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2005).

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a taxpayer is not aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value remains below its real market value.

Stevens v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080376b (or.tax 10-10-2008) · filed 2008-10-10

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2005).

A taxpayer is aggrieved under ORS 305.275 only if the requested reduction in property value would reduce the taxpayer's property taxes.

Kemp v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090135c (or.tax 4-21-2009) · filed 2009-04-21

ORS 305.275 1 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV would not reduce Plaintiff's property taxes.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Nguyen v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090236b (or.tax 5-29-2009) · filed 2009-05-29

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2007).

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce property taxes.

Larson v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 090337c (or.tax 6-30-2009) · filed 2009-06-30

ORS 305.275 2 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Where a reduction in RMV will not reduce taxes, this court has ruled that the taxpayers are not aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in property value must reduce the taxpayer's taxes.

Mau v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090204c (or.tax 6-30-2009) · filed 2009-06-30

Turning now to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking a reduction in property value to show that the reduction would lower property taxes.

Grotjohn v. Klamath County Assessor, Tc-Md 090686c (or.tax 8-20-2009) · filed 2009-08-20(1)(a)

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 , because the RMV Plaintiff has requested is greater than the MAV and AV of the subject property and will not result in any reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing real market value to be aggrieved; an alleged value above the maximum assessed value that would not change the taxpayer’s taxes does not qualify.

Rismoen Revocable Tr. v. Washington Cnty, Tc-Md 090477d (or.tax 8-21-2009) · filed 2009-08-21(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... Because the real market value Plaintiff alleges will not result in a change in her property taxes, Plaintiff is not aggrieved.

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking a value reduction to show that the reduction would lower the property taxes owed.

Watters v. Crook County Assessor, Tc-Md 090795c (or.tax 8-28-2009) · filed 2009-08-28

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved, which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes. ... If the court were to grant Plaintiff's requested RMV of $28,125, there would be no reduction in his property taxes because MAV would remain unchanged at $9,610. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 , and dismissal is in order.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved, meaning the requested value reduction would reduce property taxes.

Quinn v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 090872c (or.tax 9-17-2009) · filed 2009-09-17

ORS 305.275 1 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved when appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court. This court has interpreted that to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement if it would not reduce property taxes.

Daniel v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090657c (or.tax 9-17-2009) · filed 2009-09-17

ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV would not reduce Plaintiff's property taxes.

A taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption is aggrieved only when an exemption claim has been denied.

Richmond Church of God v. Multnomah Cnty., Tc-Md 080898c (or.tax 11-21-2008) · filed 2008-11-21(1)(a)(C)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a)(C) requires that a taxpayer seeking relief from the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court must be "aggrieved." ... Within the context of an exemption request, the act causing the taxpayer to be aggrieved is the denial of a claim for exemption.

Section 305.275 allows a timely appeal from a board order by a taxpayer who owned the property and was obligated to pay its taxes at the time of assessment, even if the taxpayer later sold it.

Hartman v. Douglas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080482c (or.tax 12-30-2008) · filed 2008-12-30(1)(a), (1)(b), (3)

ORS 305.275 (3) clearly states that a taxpayer has a right of appeal "from an order of the board." There is no dispute that BOPTA issued an order to Hartman and he filed a timely appeal. Hartman alleges that he is aggrieved because his subject property was overvalued at the time of the assessment and he had an interest in that property that obligated him to pay the property taxes. The court agrees that Hartman filed a timely appeal from a BOPTA Order; he disputed the county assessor's determination of value on property he owned and on which he was obligated to pay property taxes. Defendant's motion to deny Hartman's right of appeal is denied.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property tax value to be aggrieved; a reduction in the appealed improvement value can satisfy that requirement if it brings the property's total real market value below its maximum assessed value.

Willamette Est. v. Marion Cnty Assessor, Tc-Md 080387d (or.tax 1-21-2009) · filed 2009-01-21(1)(a)

A taxpayer must have standing to bring a property tax appeal to the court. See ORS 305.275 . To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... If the court agrees with Plaintiff and orders a change in the improvement real market value, the subject property's total real market value will be less than its maximum assessed value. At that time, Plaintiff will be aggrieved. The court continues its analysis to determine if it agrees with Plaintiff.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value is aggrieved when the reduction would lower the taxpayer's property taxes.

Taylor v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080527d (or.tax 2-10-2009) · filed 2009-02-10(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in the subject property's real market value, Plaintiffs must show that they are aggrieved. Plaintiffs would be aggrieved if the value change ordered by the court resulted in Plaintiffs paying less real property taxes.

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

Harvey v. Jackson Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 090433c (or.tax 7-15-2009) · filed 2009-07-15

The court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 because the RMV Plaintiff has requested is greater than the MAV and AV of the subject property and will not result in any reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking a reduction in property value to show that the reduction would lower property taxes.

Grotjohn v. Klamath County Assessor, Tc-Md 090685c (or.tax 8-20-2009) · filed 2009-08-20(1)(a)

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 , because the RMV Plaintiff has requested is greater than the MAV and AV of the subject property and will not result in any reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a person to be aggrieved to have standing in a tax appeal; a person facing no Oregon tax action or liability does not qualify.

Kudina v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080038c (or.tax 5-27-2009) · filed 2009-05-27

The court does not see how Harper's presence adds anything to the prosecution of this appeal. Defendant has not taken any action against Harper and, according to the claims of Kudina and Harper, Defendant cannot take any action against Harper because he is not even a resident of the state of Oregon. As such, Harper has no Oregon income tax liability and has not filed an Oregon return. Accordingly, Harper is not aggrieved and he lacks standing.

A taxpayer is aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) only if the alleged real market value is lower than the property's maximum assessed value.

Long v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090661d (or.tax 10-8-2009) · filed 2009-10-08(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... For a taxpayer to be aggrieved, the alleged real market value must be lower than the maximum assessed value. Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev ., 15 OTR 50 , 52 (1999). Plaintiff has not alleged real market values less than her maximum assessed values. There is no evidence to show that Plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(b) requires an appellant to own the affected property or hold an interest obligating them to pay its taxes; an assignment of refund rights alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Zervis v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4836 (or.tax 1-13-2010) · filed 2010-01-13(1)(b)

Taxpayers provided no evidence that they held an interest that "obligated" them to pay taxes on the property for the 2005-06 tax assessment. The only document provided — the "Assignment of Rights" from the prior owner of the property during the 2005-06 tax year — indicates the right of taxpayers to collect a refund on taxes , but not an obligation to pay taxes imposed during the 2005-06 tax year.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to bring a property tax appeal; a taxpayer seeking a lower value is not aggrieved when the taxpayer's appraisal exceeds the value on the tax roll.

Rafelson v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100596d (or.tax 8-19-2010) · filed 2010-08-19(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275(1)(a). ... After careful consideration of the evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiffs are not aggrieved because the subject property's 2009-10 real market value on the tax roll is less than the appraisal report which supports Plaintiffs' purchase price that was in excess of the real market value on the tax roll.

Section 305.275(1)(b) does not give a person standing to appeal a property assessment for a tax year when the person neither owned the property nor owed its taxes.

Nine v. Multnomah Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100346b (or.tax 9-21-2010) · filed 2010-09-21(1)(b)

Because Plaintiffs were not the owners on the assessment date and were not responsible for the tax bill, they are not aggrieved for the 2008-09 tax year. ORS 305.275(1)(b).

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a reduction in real market value that leaves assessed value unchanged does not satisfy that requirement.

Shilo Inn Newport v. Lincoln Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100107d (or.tax 1-27-2011) · filed 2011-01-27(1)(a)

For a taxpayer to be aggrieved, real market value must be lower than the maximum assessed value. ... The court cannot order that the tax roll be changed because Plaintiff is not aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved before the tax court can change the tax roll.

Goody v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100158b (or.tax 4-6-2011) · filed 2011-04-06(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275(1)(a). ... The court cannot order that the tax roll be changed unless Plaintiffs are aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that would not produce tax savings does not satisfy that requirement.

Curry v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 110127n (or.tax 5-5-2011) · filed 2011-05-05(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of ORS 305.275, then that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal. ... Plaintiff in this case has not alleged a real market value that is less than the maximum assessed value. Defendant confirmed that its compression analysis using Plaintiff's requested land real market value indicates that the requested value would not result in tax savings to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275 requires a plaintiff to be aggrieved by a defendant's action to appeal against that defendant in the Tax Court.

Catering at Its Best v. Mult. Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 090837c (or.tax 10-1-2009) · filed 2009-10-01

Neither Taxpayer nor the Assessor objected to the Department's request, and the court finds dismissal of the Department to be appropriate because Plaintiff is not "aggrieved" by any action taken by the Department, which is a prerequisite to filing an appeal with the Tax Court. ORS 305.275 . 1 Accordingly, the Department is dismissed as a named defendant.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved when the property's current maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Sariego v. Multnomah, Tc-Md 090842b (or.tax 10-21-2009) · filed 2009-10-21

So long as the property's current maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking a value reduction to show that the reduction would lower the taxpayer's property taxes.

Nelson v. Wasco County Assessor, Tc-Md 090689c (or.tax 12-16-2009) · filed 2009-12-16

However, a threshold jurisdictional requirement in the Tax Court is that the taxpayer be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (requiring that a taxpayer to be aggrieved when appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court). This court has interpreted that to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes.

A taxpayer who never requested special assessment and was never denied it is not aggrieved and cannot appeal under section 305.275(1)(a)(C).

Buma v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 091432c (or.tax 2-19-2010) · filed 2010-02-19(1)(a)(C)

Plaintiffs in this case are not aggrieved for tax years prior to 2009-10 because they never requested special assessment and, therefore, were never denied. It is the act of denial that renders a taxpayer "aggrieved" and entitled to appeal.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a requested value reduction that would not lower property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Luna v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 100092c (or.tax 5-6-2010) · filed 2010-05-06

As a result, Plaintiff not only is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 (because there would be no reduction in property taxes), but a "successful" outcome in this case would be meaningless to Plaintiff because his ultimate goal was to reduce his property taxes and mortgage payments.

A taxpayer is aggrieved under section 305.275(1)(a) only if the requested reduction in value would reduce property taxes.

Froehlich v. Wasco County Assessor, Tc-Md 100219c (or.tax 5-26-2010) · filed 2010-05-26(1)(a)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be "aggrieved," which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property value to be aggrieved, meaning the requested reduction would lower property taxes.

Repp v. Wasco County Assessor, Tc-Md 100345c (or.tax 8-31-2010) · filed 2010-08-31(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be "aggrieved," which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes.

Section 305.275(1) requires an appellant to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value that would not affect assessed value or property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Franchi v. Lincoln County Assessor, Tc-Md 100271c (or.tax 9-16-2010) · filed 2010-09-16(1)

Because there is no linkage between RMV and MAV and because AV is simply the lesser of RMV and MAV, Plaintiff's request for a reduction in RMV will have no impact on MAV or AV nor on his property taxes. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275(1), and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires an appellant to be aggrieved by a BOPTA action; an assessor is not aggrieved when BOPTA accepts the assessor's recommended value reduction.

Lane County Assessor v. Storage Place, Tc-Md 100127c (or.tax 10-11-2010) · filed 2010-10-11(1)(a)

Because BOPTA accepted the assessor's recommended value reduction, the assessor is not aggrieved by an act, order, or determination of BOPTA as required by ORS 305.275(1)(a). Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce property taxes.

Johnston v. Yamhill County Assessor, Tc-Md 100617c (or.tax 12-17-2010) · filed 2010-12-17

ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." ... Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved because his requested reduction in RMV would still result in a value considerably higher than the existing MAV or AV for the 2009-10 tax year, and there would be no reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved by a proposed reduction in real market value when the reduction would leave taxes unchanged.

Wear v. Columbia County Assessor, Tc-Md 090562b (or.tax 10-16-2009) · filed 2009-10-16

So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2007).

ORS 305.275(1) requires a taxpayer appealing a property valuation to be aggrieved; a requested reduction that would not lower property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Trone v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 091327c (or.tax 11-5-2009) · filed 2009-11-05(1)

Therefore, if Plaintiff were successful in establishing that her RMV was $300,000 on January 1, 2008, the assessment date for the 2008-09 tax year, there would be no reduction in AV or in Plaintiff's property taxes. As such, Plaintiff is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275 (1), 2 and Defendant's request for dismissal must be granted.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a reduction in real market value that would produce no tax change or refund does not make the taxpayer aggrieved.

Schmidt v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 091141b (or.tax 5-13-2010) · filed 2010-05-13

Therefore, the outcome of the dispute has no impact on Plaintiff's property taxes; Plaintiff is not aggrieved. "So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, taxpayer is not aggrieved[]" within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

A taxpayer is aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) only if the requested reduction in property value would reduce the taxpayer's taxes.

Tozer v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 100320c (or.tax 8-12-2010) · filed 2010-08-12(1)(a)

However, ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be "aggrieved," which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes. ... The court has reviewed the parties' computations and concluded that Defendant is correct; the requested reduction in RMV would not produce any tax savings. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not aggrieved and her appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Tax Court to be aggrieved, which requires a requested reduction in value to reduce property taxes.

Okada Fam. v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100450c (or.tax 9-16-2010) · filed 2010-09-16

ORS 305.275 1 requires that a party appealing to this court be "aggrieved." This court has previously ruled that a taxpayer is not aggrieved unless the requested reduction in value will produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax appellant to be aggrieved; a requested value that would not reduce the taxpayer's property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Mitchell v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100084d (or.tax 4-28-2010) · filed 2010-04-28(1)(a)

Because Plaintiffs' requested real market value is not less than the subject property's maximum assessed value and because if the court were to agree with Plaintiffs that the subject property's real market value as of January 1, 2009, was $627,500, there would be no reduction in real property taxes, Plaintiffs have not met the statutory requirement that they be aggrieved.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Armani v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100379b (or.tax 6-28-2010) · filed 2010-06-28

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

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a requested property value reduction that would yield no tax savings does not satisfy that requirement.

Bell v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100174b (or.tax 7-13-2010) · filed 2010-07-13

During that case management conference, it was determined that Plaintiffs' requested reductions in the value of their property would not yield any tax savings to Plaintiffs. Consequently, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 and this appeal must be dismissed.

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under section 305.275 when the requested reduction in real market value would not reduce the property tax assessment for the year.

Russellville v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100480d (or.tax 7-26-2010) · filed 2010-07-26

The court explained that, given its prior holdings and Plaintiffs admission that there would be no reduction in the property tax assessment for the tax year 2009-10, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value that would produce no tax change or refund does not meet that requirement.

Miller v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100594b (or.tax 8-20-2010) · filed 2010-08-20

Even if Plaintiff were to receive such relief, the revised total would still lie above the Defendant's record maximum assessed value (MAV) at $246,660. As such, no tax change would occur and there would be no refund. Therefore, there is no real tax impact to the dispute; Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2007).

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking a value reduction to be aggrieved; a reduction that would not affect maximum assessed value, assessed value, or property taxes does not meet that requirement.

Bageac v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100242c (or.tax 10-12-2010) · filed 2010-10-12

ORS 305.275 requires the party seeking a reduction in value at the Tax Court, magistrate division, be "aggrieved." ... More to the point, this court has previously (and repeatedly) ruled that a taxpayer is not aggrieved where a reduction in the RMV will not affect the MAV or AV, or property taxes. ... As a result, Plaintiff is not aggrieved and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed because the court does not have jurisdiction.

Section 305.275 requires taxpayers to be aggrieved; a square footage error does not establish aggrievement when correcting it would not necessarily reduce maximum assessed value or assessed value.

Norman v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100557c (or.tax 10-28-2010) · filed 2010-10-28

Defendant is correct in asserting that Plaintiffs are not aggrieved. Plaintiffs are not aggrieved because there is no direct correlation or "linkage" between RMV and MAV, and a reduction in RMV due to an error in square footage does not, per se , necessitate or generate a reduction in MAV or AV.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax reduction for a taxpayer to be aggrieved and obtain a change to the tax roll.

Clp Elements v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 100662d (or.tax 5-10-2011) · filed 2011-05-10(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275 does not treat a taxpayer as aggrieved when the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value.

Peressini v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 100120b (or.tax 1-27-2011) · filed 2011-01-27

The court is unable to order the $81,500 RMV reduction suggested by Defendant's presentation. At the recommended value, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved such that any tax savings is possible. So long as the property's maximum assessed value is less than its real market value, the taxpayer is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property tax assessment to be aggrieved; an alleged real market value above the property's maximum assessed value does not meet that requirement.

Simyachko v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 110273d (or.tax 5-18-2011) · filed 2011-05-18(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(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that would produce no tax savings does not satisfy that requirement.

Guinn v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110338n (or.tax 5-31-2011) · filed 2011-05-31(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) (2009) requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not "aggrieved," that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal. ... Therefore, Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (2009) and Plaintiff's 2010-11 tax year appeal must be dismissed.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires taxpayers to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value that would not lower their property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Roduner v. Marion Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 110284c (or.tax 6-6-2011) · filed 2011-06-06(1)(a)

Because Plaintiffs seek a reduction in RMV for tax year 2010-11 that is above the property's current MAV and AV for that tax year, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 , and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider their appeal.

A taxpayer is aggrieved under section 305.275(1)(a) only if the requested reduction in real market value would reduce property taxes.

Carrell v. Yamhill County Assessor, Tc-Md 110179d (or.tax 8-11-2011) · filed 2011-08-11(1)(a)

To have standing, a taxpayer must be "aggrieved." ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the requested reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Where a reduction in real market value will not reduce taxes, this court has ruled that taxpayers are not aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested real market value that would not reduce the taxpayer's taxes does not meet that requirement.

Regan v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110247n (or.tax 9-13-2011) · filed 2011-09-13(1)(a)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a) requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of ORS 305.275 , then that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal.

Section 305.275 requires an appellant to have a property interest or an obligation to pay taxes on the property affected by the challenged action.

Hertig v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-08-30(1)(b)

To be aggrieved, the defendant’s erroneous action “must affect the property of the person making the appeal or property for which the person making the appeal holds an interest that obligates the person to pay taxes imposed on the property.” ORS 305.275(1)(b); see also Zervis v. Dept. of Rev. (Zervis), TC 4836 at 4 (2010). ... Because Plaintiff is not aggrieved, this court cannot have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 305.275 allows a property owner affected by an assessor’s increased assessment to appeal.

HOF Financial I v. Marty Wynne Deschutes County Tax Collector · filed 2012-09-26(1)

The subject property, which is owned by Plaintiff, has been assessed an increased tax liability by the Assessor and Defendant, therefore Plaintiff is affected. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has standing to appeal.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax reduction for a taxpayer to be aggrieved by a real market value determination.

Willamette Gardens v. Lane County Assr., Tc-Md 100318d (or.tax 6-8-2011) · filed 2011-06-08(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275 (1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a value reduction that would not reduce taxes for the year at issue does not meet that requirement.

Bird Investments v. Marion Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 110154n (or.tax 6-13-2011) · filed 2011-06-13(1)(a)

Plaintiff's requested improvement real market value would not result in a real market value that is less than the maximum assessed value. Defendant confirmed that, based on its compression analysis, Plaintiff's requested real market value would not result in tax savings to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

Section 305.275(1) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved, meaning a reduction in real market value must affect maximum assessed value, assessed value, or property taxes.

James v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 110456c (or.tax 7-19-2011) · filed 2011-07-19(1)

However, an additional requirement for this court to exercise jurisdiction is found in ORS 305.275 (1). That statute requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved," a requirement this court has repeatedly interpreted to mean that a reduction in the RMV must affect the MAV or AV, or property taxes.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that would not reduce property taxes does not establish aggrievement.

Tousignant v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110581d (or.tax 7-28-2011) · filed 2011-07-28

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss stated that, if the court were to grant Plaintiff's requested relief to reduce the real market value of Plaintiff's property for the 2010-11 tax year to $673,430, Plaintiff was not aggrieved because there would be no reduction in Plaintiff's property taxes. Defendant cited ORS 305.275 and Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 (2000) and submitted a Tax and Compression Worksheet. Plaintiff accepted Defendant's determination. ... Because Plaintiff is not aggrieved and there is no justiciable issue before the court with respect to the subject property's 2010-11 maximum assessed value, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

A taxpayer is aggrieved under section 305.275(1)(a) only if the requested value would result in tax savings.

Truserv Corp v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 100576b (or.tax 9-30-2011) · filed 2011-09-30(1)(a)

Reduction of Plaintiff's 2009-10 real market value to $19,741,000 would not result in tax savings to Plaintiff; thus, Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 (1) and Plaintiff's appeal must be denied.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a reduction in real market value that produces tax savings satisfies that requirement.

Donahue v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110242c (or.tax 11-23-2011) · filed 2011-11-23

Defendant's representative Babcock advised the court that there would be a tax savings if the RMV for the property were reduced to at least $83,885. That information is important in determining whether Plaintiff is aggrieved, a statutory requirement under ORS 305.275 . Given the court's determination that the RMV of the subject property was $75,000 on January 1, 2010, Plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax reduction for a taxpayer to be aggrieved and obtain a change to the tax roll.

Pacific Cont. Bank v. Lane Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 110342 (or.tax 12-13-2011) · filed 2011-12-13(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275 (1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Aggrievement under section 305.275 depends on whether the court's valuation would reduce the taxpayer's property taxes.

Village Resi. v. Clackamas Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 090854b (or.tax 12-13-2011) · filed 2011-12-13

The court has no information to conclude that there will be a change in Plaintiffs property taxes for tax year 2008-09 based on the court's determination of improvement real market value and that Plaintiff is aggrieved. ORS 305.275 .

A taxpayer whose requested relief has been provided and who has no remaining issue is no longer aggrieved for purposes of an appeal under ORS 305.275.

Nicolynn Properties LLC v. Benton County Assessor and Department of Revenue · filed 2012-01-05

The county has provided Plaintiff with its requested relief and there are no additional issues pending in this matter. Accordingly, the court finds that the department’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved; the court cannot order a real market value change when the evidence does not show it would change the taxpayer’s property taxes.

Mackenzie v. Klamath County Assessor · filed 2012-01-10

The court has no information to conclude that there would be a change in Plaintiff’s property taxes for tax year 2010-11 based on the court’s determination of real market value at the low end of the range. Based on the evidence before the court, Plaintiff would not be aggrieved and court cannot order a change in real market value. ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1) treats a taxpayer as aggrieved when a reduction in real market value would cause school tax compression.

Sunstone Valley River LLC v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-02-09(1)

Defendant reported that “[c]ompression of the school portion of property ... taxes would occur if the [real market value] dropped below $25,364,480,” thus Plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275(1).

A taxpayer is aggrieved only if the requested change to the tax roll would reduce property taxes.

Palatine Investments v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-04-04(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be ... aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1) requires a taxpayer to receive tax savings from a reduction in real market value to be aggrieved.

Kohler v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2012-10-04(1)

Pursuant to ORS 305.275(1), the court‘s jurisdiction to adjust the land RMV is contingent upon a finding that compression will produce tax savings for the Plaintiffs.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that would produce no tax savings for the tax year at issue does not meet that requirement.

Jain v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 110174n (or.tax 6-10-2011) · filed 2011-06-10(1)(a)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a) requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of ORS 305.275 , then that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal. ... Defendant provided a compression analysis confirming that Plaintiff's requested real market value would not result in tax savings to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that will not reduce current taxes does not establish standing.

Evergreen Vintage v. Yamhill County, Tc-Md 110409d (or.tax 9-30-2011) · filed 2011-09-30(1)(a)

In order for a property tax appeal to made, a taxpayer must have standing. To have standing, a taxpayer must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275 (1)(a).

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property tax assessment to be aggrieved by an immediate claim of wrong; a possible tax reduction in a future year is insufficient.

Michael King Smith v. Yamhill County, Tc-Md 110405d (or.tax 9-30-2011) · filed 2011-09-30(1)(a)

In order for a property tax appeal to made, a taxpayer must have standing. To have standing, a taxpayer must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275 (1)(a). ... Plaintiff has presented no evidence of an "immediate claim of wrong."

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer seeking a property value reduction to show that it would reduce property taxes; without tax savings, the taxpayer is not aggrieved.

White v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110227c (or.tax 11-8-2011) · filed 2011-11-08(1)(a)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be "aggrieved," which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes. ... Because there would be no tax savings, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved in the court lacks jurisdiction to hear their appeal.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer seeking a value reduction to be aggrieved, meaning the reduction would lower the property’s taxes.

Holland v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2011-12-14(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be “aggrieved,” which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the subject property’s taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing to the Tax Court to be aggrieved, which means the requested relief must produce tax savings.

Patel v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-01-31(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires that a taxpayer be “aggrieved” in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not “aggrieved” within the meaning of ORS 305.275, then that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal. ... This court has consistently interpreted ORS 305.275(1) to require that a taxpayer‟s requested relief result in tax savings to the taxpayer. ... The court cannot conclude that there would be a tax savings to Plaintiff within the range of values that are supported by Defendant‟s evidence.

A taxpayer is aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) only if the requested reduction in value would reduce property taxes.

Delford M. Smith Revocable Trust v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2012-03-13(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be “aggrieved,” which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested reduction in real market value that would not lower the taxpayer's taxes does not meet that requirement.

Leary v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110244n (or.tax 8-24-2011) · filed 2011-08-24(1)(a)

ORS 305.275 (1)(a) requires that a taxpayer be "aggrieved" in order to appeal to this court; if a taxpayer is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of ORS 305.275 , then that taxpayer does not have standing to appeal. ... Plaintiffs' requested real market value of $410,000 is not less than the maximum assessed and assessed values of $318,720 and would not result in tax savings to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not, therefore, aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275 .

A taxpayer is aggrieved under section 305.275 only if the requested reduction in property value would reduce the taxpayer's property taxes.

Robinson Crossing v. Washington County, Tc-Md 110470d (or.tax 9-12-2011) · filed 2011-09-12(1)(a)

For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the requested reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Where a reduction in real market value will not reduce taxes, this court has ruled that taxpayers are not aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a person appealing a tax decision to show that an act, omission, order, or determination aggrieved them.

Ruff v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 110823n (or.tax 11-18-2011) · filed 2011-11-18(1)(a)

Plaintiff has failed to show that she is aggrieved by an "act, omission, order or determination of" Defendant as required by ORS 305.275 (1)(a).

In a real market value appeal, section 305.275(1)(a) requires the taxpayer to be aggrieved; a requested reduction that would not reduce property taxes for the tax year does not meet that requirement.

Greenleaf v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-01-30(1)(a)

Plaintiffs‟ requested reduction in 2010-11 real market value will not result in a property tax reduction for the 2010-11 tax year. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved within the meaning of ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer seeking a change to the property tax roll to show that the change would reduce property taxes.

Umpqua Bank v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-08-09(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiffs must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer to have an immediate claim of wrong and does not permit an appeal based on hypothetical future tax years.

Swanson v. Union County Assessor · filed 2012-01-11

This court held that “[i]n 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.” Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000). ... Because of these reasons, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider changes to any tax years after the current tax year of 2010-11.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved before the court orders a change to the tax roll; the change must reduce the taxpayer’s property tax.

Yarbrough v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-01-26(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer’s requested relief to produce tax savings for the taxpayer to be aggrieved and obtain a reduction in real market value.

Mayer v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-03-13(1)(a)

However, given the court‟s finding that no reduction in the 2010-11 exception value of the subject property is merited, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 and the court cannot order a reduction in the 2010-11 real market value of the subject property.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved before the court can order a real market value change to the tax roll; the change must reduce property tax.

AG-Meriwether Salem Corp. v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-07-13(1)(a)

For the court to order a change in real market value to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved; the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction. ORS 305.275(1)(a).

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a final action that aggrieves the taxpayer before the taxpayer may appeal.

Pohl v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-03-05(1)(a)

By Order of the court dated January 12, 2012, the court granted Defendant’s request to dismiss the 2010 tax year because there was no final action and Plaintiffs were therefore not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275(1)(a) (2009). That Order is incorporated herein.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax appellant to show an immediate claim of wrong that could result in tax savings.

Hunter v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-06-26(1)(a)

To have standing, the taxpayer must demonstrate that he or she is “aggrieved” as delineated in ORS 305.275. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the taxpayer must have an “immediate claim of wrong.” Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000). Such an “immediate claim of wrong” occurs when a taxpayer requests a reduction in property value that, if successful, would create a corresponding reduction in the taxpayer‟s property taxes for the subject year.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal, which means the requested relief must produce tax savings.

Serafin v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-06-09(1)(a)

This court has consistently interpreted ORS 305.275(1) to require that a taxpayer’s requested relief result in tax savings to the taxpayer. ... There would be no reduction in Plaintiff’s 2013-14 property taxes if the court granted Plaintiff’s requested relief. Plaintiff is not aggrieved and does not meet the statutory requirements of ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved by and affected by an assessor’s determination to appeal; cancelling a disqualification and restoring special assessment leaves no grievance for that tax year.

Shepherd v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2014-11-24(1)(a)

Thus, Defendant cancelled its notice disqualifying the subject property from farm use special assessment and Plaintiff is not aggrieved by any act, omission, order or determination of Defendant for the 2014-15 tax year.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved before the court changes the tax roll; the change must reduce the taxpayer’s property tax.

Kalik v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2012-11-16(1)(a)

For the court to order a change to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a tax roll change to reduce property tax for the taxpayer to be aggrieved.

Kerr v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2013-02-21(1)(a)

For the court to order a change to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction. The court did not receive evidence as to whether a reduction in the real market value of the subject property to $145,950 would result in tax savings to Plaintiff. The court will not order a change unless Plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a person to be aggrieved by and affected by an act, omission, order, or determination before appealing to the Magistrate Division.

Ochsner v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-07-12(1)(a)

Ochsner’s appeal for the 2013-14 tax year is not allowed under ORS 305.275(1)(a) because Ochsner is not aggrieved.

Section 305.275(1) prevents the court from reducing a property's real market value when the taxpayer is not aggrieved.

Emmert v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2012-12-24(1)

However, the court cannot order a reduction of the 2011-12 real market value of the subject property to $838,500 because Plaintiff is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1).

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires taxpayers to be aggrieved before the tax court can order a change to their property's real market value.

Bybee v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2013-03-20(1)(a)

The court further concludes that, although the evidence presented supports real market values less than the roll real market values for each of the subject properties, the court cannot order a change to those real market values because Plaintiffs are not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a).

A taxpayer is not aggrieved when the requested reduction in real market value would leave that value above maximum assessed value and produce no tax savings.

Aspell v. Klamath County Assessor · filed 2013-09-20(1)(a)

Plaintiffs are not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a).

A taxpayer who has not applied for property tax deferral and received an adverse decision is not aggrieved under section 305.275(1), so the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

Forrester v. Polk County Assessor · filed 2013-10-23(1)

Plaintiff is therefore not “aggrieved,” as required by ORS 305.275(1), and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires an appellant to identify an act, omission, order, or determination affecting the tax years appealed to be aggrieved.

Ochsner v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-12-16(1)(a)

Here, as in TC-MD No 130118N, Plaintiffs have not identified an “act, omission, order or determination” of Defendant’s from which they appeal for the 2012-13 or 2013-14 tax years.4 ORS 305.275(1)(a).5 See id. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved for the 2012-13 or 2013-14 tax years. ORS 305.275(1)(a).

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1) when the requested value would not reduce the tax payable for the year at issue.

Northwest Aero, Inc. v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-12-31(1)

Finding that “Plaintiff’s requested improvements real market value for Account R320461 would not result in tax savings for the 2011-12 tax year” the court dismissed Account R320461 from Plaintiff’s appeal by Order on June 15, 2012. ... IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Account R320461 is dismissed.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer seeking a change to the tax roll to show that the change would reduce property tax.

Buol v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2013-04-22(1)(a)

For the court to order a change to the tax roll, Plaintiff must be aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a). To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer’s requested relief to result in tax savings for the taxpayer to be aggrieved.

Anderson v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-01-07(1)(a)

This court has consistently interpreted ORS 305.275(1)(a) to require that a taxpayer’s requested relief result in tax savings to the taxpayer.

Section 305.275 permits an appeal from a denial of a property tax exemption request only if the appellant is obligated to pay the tax imposed on the property.

Ochsner v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2013-03-05(1)(a)(C), (1)(b)

This case could only have been brought to the Magi- strate Division under the provisions of ORS 305.275(1)(a)(C) providing for appeal from a denial of exemption request and then only if, as provided in ORS 305.275(1)(b), Catland was, under its lease of the property, obligated to pay the tax imposed on the property.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not satisfy that requirement unless it would reduce the taxpayer’s property taxes.

Swank v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2013-05-13(1)(a)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved as required by the statute, which means the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.

Section 305.275(1) permits a person aggrieved by a listed government entity’s act or determination to appeal to the magistrate division; the entity whose action caused the grievance is the necessary party.

Weinstein v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2013-07-08(1)

The absence of a representative from the assessor’s office is not critical because that office did not take the action from which Plaintiff appealed and the assessor was therefore not a necessary party. ORS 305.275(1) extends the right to appeal to the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court to any person “aggrieved” by an act or determination of one of several governmental entities including the assessor’s office and the Department. Because the determination in this case was made by the Department, which had been paying Plaintiff’s annual property taxes under the statutory tax deferral program referenced above, it was the Department, and not the assessor, that caused Plaintiff to be aggrieved.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer challenging a property's value to be aggrieved; a reduction in value that would not reduce property taxes does not give the taxpayer standing.

Seneca Sustainable Energy, LLC v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2013-07-31(1)(a)

The court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275(1) and therefore lack standing.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved before the court changes the tax roll; the change must reduce the taxpayer’s property tax.

Holiday Hills Trailer Resort, Inc. v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2013-08-23(1)(a)

To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property assessment to be aggrieved; a requested value reduction that would not reduce property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Facaros v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2013-09-24(1)(a)

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal for the 2011-12 tax year is dismissed because Plaintiff is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) for the 2011-12 tax year.

An owner may be an aggrieved taxpayer under ORS 305.275 even while its property is exempt, because the current valuation could affect taxes if the property later loses its exemption.

Seneca Sustainable Energy v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2014-04-08

The department argues that with respect to the sub- ject property, which remains exempt, Plaintiff is not a “tax- payer,” and is not “aggrieved” as required by ORS 305.275. That position is not well taken.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested value reduction that would not reduce property taxes does not satisfy that requirement.

Ochia v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-06-02(1)(a)

Plaintiff is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) and Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be granted.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division to be aggrieved; a taxpayer whose assessed value does not exceed the statutory limit is not aggrieved.

Nicolynn Properties, LLC v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2014-07-07

ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be “aggrieved.” ... Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved because the subject property’s MAV for 2012-13 is not more than 103 percent of the 2011-12 AV.

ORS 305.275 requires a taxpayer to have an immediate claim of wrong; possible future tax effects do not make the taxpayer aggrieved.

VanderZanden v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-05-18

“[i]n 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.” ... Based on this court’s prior holding in Kaady, Plaintiff is not aggrieved.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value is aggrieved under section 305.275(1)(a) only if the reduction would lower property taxes.

Dunzer v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2014-09-24(1)(a)

To be aggrieved, the change in real market value must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275(1)(b) permits a person contractually obligated to pay property taxes to appeal their imposition.

Boardman Acquisition LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-09-29(1)(b)

ORS 305.275(1)(b) also provides for an appeal by a person who, as to any property, has a contractual obligation to pay tax. Under its contract with Boardman Acquisition, the Port was obligated to pay the Additional Taxes imposed on the Property. The Port paid the Additional Taxes and applied for a refund of that amount. The request for a refund was denied by the county. The Port has standing to pursue its case as to the Property and the Additional Taxes at issue.

Section 305.275(1) requires an income tax appellant to be aggrieved and affected by a Department of Revenue action; a taxpayer who has neither paid a deficiency in full nor received a notice assessing it lacks standing to appeal.

Steimle v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-25(1)

Reading ORS 305.265 and ORS 305.275(1) together, the court concludes that a taxpayer who has neither paid a deficiency in full nor received a notice assessing a deficiency is not yet aggrieved and affected by an act, order, omission, or determination of the department.

Section 305.275(1)(b) does not give a mere lienholder standing to appeal a property tax assessment without evidence that it was obligated to pay the property's taxes.

CitiMortgage Inc. v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2017-02-10(1)(b)

Accordingly, Plaintiff as a mere lien holder does not have standing appeal the 2013-14 tax year under ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1) allows a property owner to appeal an exemption denial when the requested relief would reduce taxes on the property and the owner remains obligated to pay those taxes despite a lease allowing recovery from the tenant.

Mater Investment Co. v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2015-07-01(1)(a), (1)(b)

If Plaintiffs prevail, the subject property will be exempt from property taxation, resulting in a reduction of property taxes due on the subject property. Plaintiffs own the subject property and, under the lease to Greenbelt, remain obligated to pay the property taxes on the subject property. Even though the lease may allow Plaintiffs to recover any increase in property taxes from Greenbelt that result from loss of property tax exemption, it does not remove Plaintiffs’ ultimate responsibility, as fee owner, to pay the property taxes. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of ORS 305.275(1).

An appeal from an assessor’s denial of an exemption claim allows the Tax Court to make a new factual determination based on evidence.

Oregon Center for Public Policy v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2017-09-19(1)(a)(C)

Defendant’s argument is not well taken because a taxpayer’s right under ORS 305.275(1)(a)(C) to appeal an assessor’s “denial of a claim for exemption” includes a right to a new factual determination by this court based on evidence.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer appealing a property tax decision to show that the requested relief would reduce their property taxes.

JJWIN Investment v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-07-20(1)(a)

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be “aggrieved,” which this court has interpreted to mean that the requested reduction in value, if granted, would reduce the property taxes. ... Because Plaintiffs’ requested relief would not generate a tax savings, they are not aggrieved by Defendant’s action and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear their appeal.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal; a requested reduction in real market value that would not reduce property taxes does not give the taxpayer standing.

Snell v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-07-12(1)(a)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are not aggrieved and therefore lack standing to bring the appeal under ORS 305.275(1)(a).

ORS 305.275(1)(a) requires taxpayers to be aggrieved to appeal a property tax assessment.

Harrod v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-08-06(1)(a)

On June 12, 2015, the court issued an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 2013-14 Tax Year Appeal concluding that Plaintiffs were not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275(1)(a) for the 2013-14 tax year. That Order is incorporated by reference into this Final Decision.

Section 305.275 allows a change to the tax rolls only if the taxpayer is aggrieved.

Yang v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2015-11-02

The court cannot order a change to the tax rolls unless Plaintiffs are aggrieved. ORS 305.275.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax reduction from a change to the tax roll for a taxpayer to be aggrieved.

Pastega Investment Company LLC v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2016-05-06(1)(a)

To be aggrieved, the ordered change to the tax roll must result in a property tax reduction.

Section 305.275 requires a taxpayer seeking to appeal to be aggrieved; a requested change that would not affect the taxpayer’s tax assessment does not satisfy that requirement.

Work v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2016-09-21(1)

In addition, in order for this court to have jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s claim, the taxpayer must be “aggrieved by and affected by an act, omission or determination” of the county assessor, or other applicable state tax authority. ... Because the assessed value was based on the subject property’s RMV that year, a change to the MAV would not result in a change to Plaintiff’s tax assessment. Plaintiff is therefore not aggrieved, and the court must dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal of the 2013-14 tax year.

Section 305.275(1)(a) permits the court to order a change to the property tax roll only if the taxpayers are aggrieved.

RC Springfield 2007 LLC and Royal Carribean Cruises LTD v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2017-05-31(1)(a)

The court may only order a change to the property tax roll if Plaintiffs are aggrieved. ORS 305.275(1)(a).

A taxpayer is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275 when the requested reduction in real market value would not reduce property taxes.

Lindquist v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2015-09-03(1)(a)

The court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved as required by ORS 305.275 because Plaintiff’s requested real market value will not reduce Plaintiff’s property taxes.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires an immediate claim of harm; a possible future tax effect does not make a taxpayer aggrieved when the requested value reduction would not lower current property taxes.

The Falls Apartments, LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-08-04(1)(a)

After careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1)(a) for the 2015-16 tax year.

Section 305.275(1) requires a taxpayer to be aggrieved to appeal a tax decision.

Mater Investment Company v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2016-03-24(1)

On July 1, 2015, the court entered an Order concluding that Plaintiffs are aggrieved under ORS 305.275(1) and denying Defendant’s motion. The court’s Order entered July 1, 2015, is hereby incorporated in this Decision.

Section 305.275(1)(a) requires a property tax appellant to be aggrieved; a requested reduction in real market value does not establish aggrievement if it would not reduce property taxes.

Eisen v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-05-24(1)(a)

For there to be an immediate claim of wrong, the requested reduction in value must produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. ... Because the maximum assessed value is less than both the real market value currently on the rolls and the real market value requested by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is not aggrieved.