Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.427

A taxpayer meets the burden of proof under ORS 305.427 when its valuation testimony carries weight and the department presents no evidence of value.

Astoria Plywood Corp. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1975-04-21

Whereas the defendant presented no testimony of evidential value, the plaintiff presented some testimony which carried weight with the court, if not conviction. The plaintiff has met the burden of proof required by ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a lack of uniformity in assessment on the taxpayer who raises that issue.

Polehn v. Department of Revenue · filed 1975-05-01

The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof with regard to the issue of uniformity. ORS 305.427. There was no evidence to show that his list of “comparable” properties were in fact comparable.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer contesting an assessment to prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Freightliner Corp. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1975-05-15

In order to contest the assessment made by Multnomah County, plaintiff must first prove that there was an intentional or arbitrary assessment made upon the personal property. This the plaintiff has done by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging a valuation to prove its proposed value by a preponderance of the evidence.

United States National Bank v. Department of Revenue · filed 1980-01-11

Since such evidence is lacking, and since the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish its alleged value by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must disallow the 20 percent reduction as an adjustment. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a taxpayer seeking a reduction for economic obsolescence.

Oregon Bank v. Department of Revenue · filed 1980-03-06

In view of the above and the outdated data upon which plaintiff relied, the court finds that the plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proof required by ORS 305.427. A reduction for economic obsolescence is denied.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging a valuation to prove its position by a preponderance of the evidence.

Portland Adventist Hospital v. Department of Revenue · filed 1980-05-06

Since neither ... appraiser substantiated his opinion with factual detail, the court accepts the defendant’s 5 percent vacancy rate in that the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof by the requisite preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a lower assessed value to prove that value by a preponderance of the evidence, even when the court reduced the property’s value for the prior tax year.

Williamson v. Department of Revenue · filed 1982-06-25

The burden of proving a value which is lower than that set by the Department of Revenue still rests with the plaintiff. ... The court’s opinion is based on a preponderance of the evidence (ORS 305.427), a highly subjective determination.

Section 305.427 places the burden on taxpayers challenging an assessment to prove a different valuation or show that the assessment is incorrect.

Ward v. Department of Revenue · filed 1982-09-21

As the parties challenging the validity and correctness of the assessment, plaintiffs have the burden of proving a valuation different from that found by the department or of proving that the challenged assessment is incorrect.

Section 305.427 places the burden on the taxpayer to prove that a challenged assessment is incorrect.

Taunton v. Department of Revenue · filed 1982-10-05

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the challenged assessment is incorrect. ORS 305.427. This burden has not been met.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a taxpayer challenging a tax assessment.

Brenner v. Department of Revenue · filed 1983-02-02

In spite of this full opportunity, he has not sustained the burden of proof imposed upon him by ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a party seeking a valuation adjustment to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1984-04-05

If the energy problem also contributed to an economic obsolescence factor, the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence as required by ORS 305.427 that 10 percent is the correct deduction.

A taxpayer challenging a farm use valuation must provide evidence from comparable land sufficient to carry the burden of proof under ORS 305.427.

Benton v. Department of Revenue · filed 1986-03-04

The income test requires information concerning leases for land comparable to the land at issue. Taxpayers have not provided this information. The Department’s determination of farm use value is better supported than taxpayers’.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers challenging a property appraisal method to prove with evidence that their preferred method is needed.

Lewis v. Department of Revenue · filed 1986-11-25

Taxpayers therefore had the burden to show by evidence that a correct appraisal depended on the adoption of their preferred method of valuing the units as factional interests in a motel.

ORS 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging a property tax assessment to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment is unfair.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1987-02-03

To prevail, Southern Pacific need only prove to us by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 305.427, that the assessment of its Oregon property was “unfair,” i.e., that Oregon has taxed extraterritorial value.

Section 305.427 places the initial burden of persuasion on taxpayers challenging a tax assessment.

Brown v. Department of Revenue · filed 1988-07-25

Despite plaintiffs’ efforts to shift the burden of proof to defendant, the initial burden of persuasion remains with plaintiffs. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer challenging an assessment to show that its preferred valuation method is necessary for a correct appraisal.

First Interstate Bank v. Department of Revenue · filed 1988-08-30

Taxpayer, as the party challenging the assessment, has the burden to show that a correct appraisal depended on the adoption of its preferred method of valuation.

The taxpayer bears the burden of showing that its approach to valuation best reflects true cash value.

Freedom Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue · filed 1990-11-26

Taxpayer has the burden to show that its approach to valuation best reflects true cash value. ... Taxpayer has not met its burden to show that its appraisal methods best reflected true cash value.

Taxpayers must show by a preponderance of the evidence that their valuation approach best reflects true cash value.

MacHaffie v. Department of Revenue · filed 1991-09-19

Taxpayers have the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their approach to valuation best reflects true cash value. ORS 305.427; OAR 150-305.115. ... Because taxpayers did not carry their burden of proof, we hold that the true cash value for 1987 is $94,000.

Section 305.427 places the burden on the department to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its valuation best reflects the property's value.

Ernst Brothers Corp. v. Department.of Revenue · filed 1994-10-27

The department has the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its valuation best reflects the value of the property.

A taxpayer must show that its valuation approach best reflects the property’s real market value.

STC Submarine, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1995-03-23

Taxpayer has the burden to show that its approach to valuation best reflects the property’s “real market value.”

A party challenging a tax assessment must prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1999-06-11

Delta must prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Taxpayers must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their valuation approach best reflects the properties’ real market value.

Piedmont Plaza Investors v. Department of Revenue · filed 2001-02-08

Taxpayers must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their approach to valuation best reflects the properties’ real market value.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving disputed valuation facts on the taxpayer.

Chart Development Corporation v. Department, Revenue · filed 2001-12-04

On those issues of fact, taxpayer bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the initial burden on a taxpayer to prove an error in real market value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Venerable Properties, Inc. v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2002-10-29

Plaintiff bears the initial burden of proof and must establish an error in real market value by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden.

Section 305.427 places on the taxpayer the burden of proving that the facts underlying a tax assessment are incorrect.

Curtis v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-06-30

In this court taxpayer bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. She has the obligation to show that the facts serving as the basis of the department’s assessments are not correct.

The appealing taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the property's real market value should be reduced.

Yanez v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2005-04-22

As the appealing party, taxpayers have the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. ... Based on the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that taxpayers have not met their burden of proof necessary to establish that the RMV for the property should be reduced for the 2003-04 property tax year.

Section 305.427 places on the taxpayer the burden of proving the extent and real market value of claimed retirements.

Magno v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2006-05-18

Ultimately, taxpayer bears the burden of proof in this case. ORS 305.427 . That includes the burden of proving the extent and RMV of any retirements. Taxpayer has not provided such proof either in the form of an appraisal of those portions of her property that she claims as retirements, or evidence that she sold any materials once they left her property, or that she had obtained goods or services in kind, or any other form. Regardless of how retirements are valued, taxpayer has failed to prove any amount of retirements in this case.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the department when it appeals a property valuation.

Dept. of Rev. v. Butte Creek Associates I · filed 2006-07-20

That conclusion is of special significance given that the department bears the burden of proof in this case. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief; two appraisals can satisfy that burden.

Grant Cty. Ass. v. Hawkeye Mini. · filed 2007-12-21

The county offered two appraisals in support of its assertion that the value of the property is $68,000, effectively meeting its burden of proof under ORS 305.427 .

A taxpayer seeking a lower real market value bears the burden of proving that value.

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

Taxpayer did not meet her burden of proof under ORS 305.427 as to the RMV of the land or the addition.

Section 305.427 does not require the tax court to accept uncontradicted testimony when the surrounding circumstances undermine a claimed deduction.

Bush v. State Tax Commission · filed 1966-07-28

The trial court is not bound to close its eyes to conditions which would lead reasonable-minded persons to conclude that the alleged transaction did not result in a bad debt which became worthless to the plaintiff in 1962.

Section 305.427 places on taxpayers the burden of proving that timber was not held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business.

McCollum v. State Tax Commission · filed 1967-01-13

The plaintiffs have the burden of proving that they were not holding the timber primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of their trade or business.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a plaintiff claiming a property tax exemption.

Oregon Research Institute, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1971-06-25

The plaintiff has the burden of proof under ORS 305.427, and has not sustained it on this point.

ORS 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer challenging an income apportionment formula to show that it does not fairly and accurately reflect income earned in Oregon.

Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue · filed 1975-07-03

The court noted that plaintiff, as the moving party, had the burden... of showing that the formula adopted by defendant under its rule-making authority does not “fairly and accurately reflect the net income of the business done within the state,”... and found that plaintiff had not met this burden. We agree with this conclusion and adopt as our own that portion of the opinion of the Tax Court dealing with the cross-appeal.

Section 305.427 requires an applicant seeking special tax treatment to support the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Beddoe v. Department of Revenue · filed 1979-08-15

But, since the burden of proof is placed upon the applicant for special treatment, it behooves him, when questioned by the assessor or when in court, to produce the plans, the records of account and the witnesses with which he can reasonably support his case with the preponderance of the evidence required by ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer to prove a claimed tax overpayment.

Martin v. Department of Revenue · filed 1982-12-07

The taxpayer has the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. ... After reading the testimony, examining the exhibits and reconstructing the analyses presented by taxpayer, the Department and the Tax Court, we independently conclude that taxpayer has not met his burden of proof in asserting a claim for overpayment of withholding tax.

Section 305.427 requires the Department to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence when seeking an alternative apportionment method.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1985-06-04

Department has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on the taxpayer to show that his corporate role did not include responsibility for ensuring important corporate obligations were met.

Olson v. Department of Revenue · filed 1987-10-20

But it was plaintiff's burden, ORS 305.427, to show that the corporation was not entitled to look to him to assure that important corporate obligations were not neglected if the primary manager were, for instance, absent or disabled.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof in Tax Court proceedings on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Emmel v. Department of Revenue · filed 1987-12-16

In all proceedings before the Tax Court, the burden of proof falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief. (ORS 305.427). Based on the evidence submitted by both parties, the court finds that plaintiff failed to show that the subject land was used “exclusively for farm use.”

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a taxpayer seeking an alternative to the statutory apportionment formula.

Pacific Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1989-05-02

The burden of proof is on the taxpayer seeking to use an alternative to the statutory formula.

A taxpayer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a claimed deduction is allowable.

Reed v. Department of Revenue · filed 1990-08-30

In a tax case, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a deduction is allowable. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a statutory apportionment formula does not fairly represent its Oregon business activity.

Crocker Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1992-08-20

Taxpayer has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statutory apportionment formula does not fairly represent the extent of taxpayer’s business activity in Oregon.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging the denial of a deduction to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the deduction is allowable.

Baisch v. Department of Revenue · filed 1993-05-06

Taxpayers bear the burden of proof in this case. A taxpayer seeking relief from a decision of the Department denying a deduction bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the deduction is allowable.

In a taxpayer’s appeal, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a deduction even when the department first seeks additional tax in an amended answer.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1993-10-12

Based on these cases, although defendant is seeking additional taxes over those found due in its opinion and order, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Section 305.427 places the burden of persuasion on the party seeking affirmative relief, including a taxpayer claiming that a deficiency is time barred.

U.S. Bancorp & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue · filed 2003-10-16

In such a case, it is both required, under ORS 305.427, and appropriate, under general principles relating to allocation of the burden of persuasion, to place on taxpayer the burden of persuasion that notification was given by the IRS to the department before January 14, 1997. Within the meaning of ORS 305.427, taxpayer is seeking affirmative relief in every sense and application of those words.

ORS 305.427 places the burden of persuasion on the party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court proceedings, including a taxpayer challenging the validity of an extension agreement.

U.S. Bancorp v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-12-16

As noted above, ORS 305.427 places the burden of persuasion upon the party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court proceedings. ... The Tax Court correctly determined that taxpayer had the burden to prove that the parties’ extension agreement was defective and that taxpayer had failed to do so.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was not an Oregon resident.

Defilippis v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 050757c (or.tax 2006) · filed 2006-03-02

Oregon law places the burden of proof on Plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was not a resident of Oregon, domiciled in this state, for the tax years at issue. See ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer to prove that a claimed exemption meets the statutory requirements.

Presbyterian v. Wash. County, Tc-Md 070015d (or.tax 1-4-2008) · filed 2008-01-04

The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove that a claim of exemption meets the statutory requirements. ... The court concludes that Plaintiff carried its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and sets a preponderance of the evidence as the standard.

Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue · filed 1974-11-25

In addition, ORS 305.427, states that the burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief and the burden of going forward with the evidence shall shift as in other civil litigation. ORS 305.427 also establishes the severity of the burden: “In all proceedings before the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof.” It is, therefore, established that the plaintiff need show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department of Revenue has acted improperly in the three issues for determination.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers challenging an assessment; an earlier assessment may carry that burden and require the Department to explain a changed valuation.

Lethin v. Department of Revenue · filed 1977-05-03

In the Tax Court the earlier assessment could serve as evidence to carry the taxpayers’ burden of proof under ORS 305.427 and to shift to the Department the burden of coming forward with an explanation for its changed valuation of the land, but it did not preclude the Department’s questioning the 1973 valuation as having been too low on the pre-1973 evidence.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving an asserted real market value on taxpayers; the county need not present evidence until they offer evidence supporting that value.

Freitag v. Department of Revenue · filed 2007-01-23

Taxpayers, however, are the ones who have the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427 . The county has no obligation to call witnesses or introduce evidence until taxpayers shift the burden by presenting evidence of their asserted RMV.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and the burden of going forward on taxpayers disputing their property's real market value.

Freitag v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2007-07-03

This case involved a dispute about the RMV of taxpayers' property. That is a question of fact to which taxpayers bore the burden of proof and the burden of going forward. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 shifts the burden of going forward to the Department of Revenue once a taxpayer presents substantial evidence of a property value different from the assessor’s valuation.

Publishers Paper Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1974-12-19

We take this to mean in practical terms that the Department of Revenue initially need show nothing to justify its assessment or the method by which it was derived. However, once the taxpayer has introduced substantial evidence tending to show a value of the property different from that asserted by the assessor, the burden of going forward shifts to the Department of Revenue to refute this showing without the benefit of any presumption different from that accorded to an ordinary civil litigant who has the advantage of the burden of proof.

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and initially bears the burden of going forward with the evidence.

Dattatraya LLC v. Linn County Assessor, Tc-Md 100162c (or.tax 10-6-2010) · filed 2010-10-06

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... After due consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish an error in the RMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2009, and that the RMV on the rolls should be sustained.

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and the initial burden of producing evidence, and must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sahhali South v. Tillamook County, Tc-Md 090541c (or.tax 12-30-2010) · filed 2010-12-30

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a "preponderance" of the evidence. Id. ... On balance, the court finds Plaintiff to have presented a more persuasive picture of the overall condition of the real estate market on the coast as of January 1, 2008, and the range of values for the subject property.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief; if that party fails to carry it, the burden does not shift to the opposing party.

Cai v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100205d (or.tax 1-11-2011) · filed 2011-01-11

Because Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof, the burden did not shift to Defendant. ORS 305.427. Defendant's determination of the subject property's market value is not considered.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and the initial burden of going forward with evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief, under a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Do v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100216c (or.tax 6-15-2011) · filed 2011-06-15

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427 . The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a "preponderance" of the evidence.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and the burden of going forward on taxpayers disputing their property's real market value.

Theatres v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 110414d (or.tax 9-29-2011) · filed 2011-09-29

A dispute about the real market value of taxpayers' property "is a question of fact to which taxpayers b[ear] the burden of proof and the burden of going forward." Freitag v. Dept. of Rev. , 19 OTR 337 (2007), citing ORS 305.427 . ... Given the parties representation that not all relevant evidence is before the court and Plaintiff's decision not to provide the court and Defendant with an opportunity to verify and review the listing broker's land sale comparables through the listing broker's testimony, the court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the initial burden of producing evidence and proving a Tax Court claim by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Wittemyer v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-03-02

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a “preponderance” of the evidence. Id.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and the initial burden of going forward with evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief, and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sea Perch RV Resort LLC v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-03-02

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof, and initially, “the burden of going forward with the evidence.” ORS 305.427. The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a “preponderance” of the evidence. (Id.)

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and the initial burden of producing evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief, who must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wittemyer v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-07-24

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. The burden of proof in the Oregon Tax Court is a “preponderance” of the evidence. Id. ... Based on the trial record and the exhibits submitted, the court finds Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 establishes the plaintiff’s burden of proof in a tax appeal.

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1977-10-10

Plaintiffs burden of proof is established by ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a party seeking affirmative relief to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence in tax court and on appeal.

Jeddeloh v. Department of Revenue · filed 1978-05-02

For reasons which will become apparent, we emphasize the burden of proof and scope of review applicable to this case. ORS 305.427 provides: ... "In all proceedings before the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief and the burden of going forward with the evidence shall shift as in other civil litigation.” ... It should be noted that we do not make this same determination here, but merely hold that in our de novo review the taxpayer did not sustain his burden of proving that his dominant motivation related to his trade or business.

Section 305.427 requires the Tax Court and the reviewing court to find for the party that presents the preponderance of the evidence.

Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1984-08-08

ORS 305.427 requires the Tax Court and this court to find for the party who presented the preponderance of the evidence. We agree with the Tax Court that plaintiff met this burden with regard to evidence of installation costs.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party appealing a tax valuation.

Borden, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1985-02-07

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof on the appealing party. Under the circumstances, the court must rule against the plaintiff and accept defendant’s conclusion that the true cash value of the buildings and structures at the Springfield plant on January 1,1980, was $1,360,000.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the appealing party in a tax dispute.

Ormsby v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-11-24

Taxpayers, as the appealing party, bear the burden of proof. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the appealing party.

Morey v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-11-24

Taxpayers, as the appealing party, bear the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. ... Based on the foregoing, taxpayers have not met their burden of proof, regardless which standard the court applies in this case.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers appealing a magistrate decision, including the burden to offer evidence supporting a disputed claim of property ownership.

Freitag v. Department of Revenue · filed 2006-04-27

As has been belabored in this opinion, taxpayers are appealing a decision of a magistrate and have the burden of proof as to that appeal. ORS 305.427. The magistrate determined that taxpayers had not shown divided and separate ownership and counseled taxpayers as to their need to provide some documentary evidence to the contrary. To carry their burden of proof, taxpayers must offer some evidence as to ownership on which the court might find contrary to the county’s position.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a taxpayer appealing to the Tax Court and keeps that burden on the taxpayer on appeal from the Tax Court.

PP & L v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 1989-05-31

Pacific cites no binding authority for this proposition, which contradicts the basic idea that the burden in an appeal by a taxpayer to the Tax Court is on the taxpayer. ORS 305.427. The Tax Court did not err. To the extent that Pacific is also asking that this court impose such a burden on the Department in this court, the request is denied. The burden is the same "upon appeal" from the Tax Court. ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer appealing to the Tax Court bears the burden of proof, and that burden remains with the taxpayer on appeal from the Tax Court.

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 1989-05-31

Pacific cites no binding authority for this proposition, which contradicts the basic idea that the burden in an appeal by a taxpayer to the Tax Court is on the taxpayer. ORS 305.427. The Tax Court did not err. To the extent that Pacific is also asking that this court impose such a burden on the Department in this court, the request is denied. The burden is the same “upon appeal” from the Tax Court. ORS 305.427.

A party seeking to change the Tax Court's decision on appeal bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Department of Revenue · filed 1992-12-17

With respect to the case as it is presented in this court, we note only that, as to the claims that UP makes that would require a modification of the decision of the Tax Court, UP has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. We have required UP to meet that burden throughout our review of its evidence. As to the matters concerning which the Department asks this court to change the decision of the Tax Court or as to which it cross-assigns error, it is the Department that shoulders the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a taxpayer appealing a magistrate’s decision.

Poddar v. Department of Revenue · filed 2005-09-01

Taxpayer appeals from a decision of a magistrate and, therefore, bears the burden of proof on appeal. ORS 305.427 (2003).

The party seeking to change a property tax assessment must prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lane County Assessor v. The Farm · filed 2012-01-24

By statute, Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish an error in the record assessment by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427's burden of proof does not relieve the department of satisfying a condition it set for changing an apportionment method before litigation.

US Bancorp v. Dept. of Rev., Tc 4531 (or.tax 3-13-2007) · filed 2007-03-13

The department argues the plaintiff has the burden of proof under ORS 305.427 , and therefore, it has no obligation to show any satisfaction of this condition. But this is a question of a condition to pre-litigation action and one where the department, assuming its rule is valid, has constrained itself to satisfy the condition if it proposes a change.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof in Tax Court on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hansen v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 081122d (or.tax 9-29-2009) · filed 2009-09-29

See also ORS 305.427 (providing that the burden of proof in the Tax Court is a preponderance of the evidence and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving entitlement to affirmative relief by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking it.

Liska v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-03-06

Allowable deductions from taxable income are a “matter of legislative grace” and the burden of proof (substantiation) is placed on the individual claiming the deduction. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Comm’r, 503 U.S. 79, 84, 112 S Ct 1039, 117 L Ed 2d 226 (1992); see also ORS 305.427 (2007) (providing that the burden of proof in the Tax Court is a preponderance of the evidence and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof in the Oregon Tax Court on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hansen v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-04-12

See also ORS 305.427 (the burden of proof in the Oregon Tax Court is a preponderance of the evidence and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief). ... The court also reviewed Plaintiffs’ general ledger and the receipts provided and agrees with Palmer that the general ledger, by itself, is not reliable evidence of Plaintiffs’ claimed deductions.

A party challenging a property's real market value must present competent evidence of the value it claims.

Mednansky v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2025-11-18

That party must be prepared to present competent evidence that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller the amount in cash for which the party contends.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief in a civil tax appeal.

Giacchero v. Tillamook County Assessor, Tc-Md 070832c (or.tax 1-25-2008) · filed 2008-01-25

This, however, is a civil matter and Plaintiffs, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bear the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hochstein v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 070351 (or.tax 2-13-2008) · filed 2008-02-13

In these appeals, a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof. "That burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *."

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruff v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 060814d (or.tax 9-30-2008) · filed 2008-09-30

The burden of proof is on the party seeking affirmative relief in proceedings before the tax court. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief and the burden of proof falls upon her. The burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires that party to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Blatner v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080472c (or.tax 2-3-2009) · filed 2009-02-03

Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief and therefore has the burden of proof. By statute, she must establish her case by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court.

Wood v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080675c (or.tax 2-26-2009) · filed 2009-02-26

The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a "preponderance" of the evidence, and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief which, in this case, is Plaintiff.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, who must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Villatoro v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 081107d (or.tax 8-14-2009) · filed 2009-08-14

Plaintiffs must establish their claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence."

Section 305.427 requires a tax court appellant to prove the appeal by a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Wynne v. Lincoln County Assessor, Tc-Md 080231c (or.tax 10-16-2009) · filed 2009-10-16

The burden of proof in an appeal to the tax court is a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 (2007).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lfgc, LLC v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080529d (or.tax 10-29-2009) · filed 2009-10-29

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427 . A preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of evidence or the more convincing evidence, is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof and initial burden of going forward on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hausler v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090237c (or.tax 12-4-2009) · filed 2009-12-04

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff is the moving party and therefore shoulders the burden of proof which, by statute, is a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Purtzer v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 081160d (or.tax 1-8-2010) · filed 2010-01-08

Plaintiff has the burden of proof. "In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. " ORS 305.427 (2005) (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish her claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence."

Section 305.427 requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Vakulchik v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090351d (or.tax 3-29-2010) · filed 2010-03-29

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added).

The section places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and permits a preponderance of the evidence to suffice.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090772d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090765d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

...The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090759d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090744d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief in tax court proceedings.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090756d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence."

ORS 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090757d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090741d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090775d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added).

Section 305.427 places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090762d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence to sustain the burden of proof and places that burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090753d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence to sustain the burden of proof and places that burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090739d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added).

The section requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090742d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090731d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence to sustain the burden of proof and places that burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090768d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

The section places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090754d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a preponderance of the evidence and places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090755d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4-5 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof.

When both parties seek affirmative relief, each must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property tax board’s valuation was incorrect before the court may adjust it.

Clackamas County Assessor v. MEPT 212 Corporate Center LLC · filed 2012-07-09

In this case, both parties are seeking affirmative relief. Plaintiff is requesting an increase in the roll value; Defendant is requesting a decrease. For either party to obtain relief, its evidence must be sufficient to render it probable that BOPTA‟s valuation was incorrect.

Section 305.427 requires a party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court to prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Outdoor Media Dimensions v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2008-01-29

Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief on the issue of double taxation, and therefore bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof. Accordingly, the court concludes that there was no double taxation of the two signs (signs #5 and #7).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the plaintiffs and requires them to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stacy v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 070481c (or.tax 1-31-2008) · filed 2008-01-31

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiffs have not met their burden.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Fred Hodecker Inc. v. Deschutes Cty Assr., Tc-Md 070343b (or.tax 2-13-2008) · filed 2008-02-13

In these appeals, a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof. That burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record.

ORS 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief to prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ingram v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 060569b (or.tax 3-5-2008) · filed 2008-03-05

In these appeals, a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof. That burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 . 4 Plaintiffs have not met that statutory requirement in this record.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and permits that burden to be met by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sharps v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 070467d (or.tax 3-31-2008) · filed 2008-03-31

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Simpson v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 070587b (or.tax 5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02

In these appeals, a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof. That burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Purveyor Dist, Co. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., Tc-Md 070800d (or.tax 11-6-2008) · filed 2008-11-06

The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. " ORS 305.427 (2005) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove a claim by a preponderance of the evidence; insufficient substantiation fails that burden.

Aguilera v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080151c (or.tax 11-7-2008) · filed 2008-11-07

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... After carefully evaluating the evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to adequately substantiate his claim to the two disputed credits for 2006.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Chaff v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 080892c (or.tax 1-16-2009) · filed 2009-01-16

ORS 305.427 provides that "[i]n all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof." Plaintiffs, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bear the burden of proof. Id. ... On the evidence before it, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have simply failed to establish by a "preponderance" of the evidence that they filed their 2002 Oregon return on June 24, 2003, or at any time within three years of the April 15, 2003, statutory deadline for requesting a refund.

Taxpayers must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Day v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080192b (or.tax 3-12-2009) · filed 2009-03-12

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proving a tax appeal by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Leiva v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080081b (or.tax 5-7-2009) · filed 2009-05-07

In these appeals, a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof. That burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record, as to the total relief requested.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Negrete v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090028d (or.tax 6-12-2009) · filed 2009-06-12

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added.) ... Having failed to prove that wages are not taxable income in prior proceedings before this court, 2 Plaintiff fails to carry the burden of proof in the matter now before the court, where once again he argues that he has no taxable income even though he admits to being employed by Time Frame Inc.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mittan v. Columbia County Assessor, Tc-Md 080890b (or.tax 6-12-2009) · filed 2009-06-12

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

A taxpayer seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ellison v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080115c (or.tax 6-30-2009) · filed 2009-06-30

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof, per ORS 305.427 , and, although that burden is only a preponderance, the court finds Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in terms of establishing the cost and fair market value of the items donated.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Dolgos v. Washington Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 090299b (or.tax 11-24-2009) · filed 2009-11-24

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Johnson v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 091183b (or.tax 12-15-2009) · filed 2009-12-15

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . A "[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 , 312 (1971). "[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet [her] burden of proof." Reed v. Dept. of Rev. , 310 Or 260 , 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990). Plaintiff in this case has not met that statutory requirement. Accordingly, her appeal must be denied.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vieceli v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 091348d (or.tax 2-10-2010) · filed 2010-02-10

Plaintiff's casualty and theft loss carryover claim is denied because he failed to meet the statutory burden of proof that such a loss is an allowable deduction and that the carryover should be allowed.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vieceli v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090073d (or.tax 2-10-2010) · filed 2010-02-10

Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." ... Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief in Oregon Tax Court proceedings to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vieceli v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090579d (or.tax 2-10-2010) · filed 2010-02-10

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Moua v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 081230b (or.tax 3-4-2010) · filed 2010-03-04

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . A "[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence * * *." Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 , 312 (1971). "[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof." Reed v. Dept. of Rev. , 310 Or 260 , 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990). Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rose River LLC v. Deschutes Cty. Assr., Tc-Md 090489b (or.tax 3-11-2010) · filed 2010-03-11

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs in these cases have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wells v. Clatsop County Assessor, Tc-Md 090858b (or.tax 3-12-2010) · filed 2010-03-12

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . A "[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 , 312 (1971). "[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof * * *." Reed v. Dept. of Rev. , 310 Or 260 , 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990). Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rees v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 091472b (or.tax 3-17-2010) · filed 2010-03-17

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . A "[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 , 312 (1971). "[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof * * *." Reed v. Dept. of Rev. , 310 Or 260 , 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990). Plaintiffs have not met that statutory requirement in this record.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Barnes v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 091509b (or.tax 5-5-2010) · filed 2010-05-05

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a Tax Court claim by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Buck v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 090876c (or.tax 6-30-2010) · filed 2010-06-30

In the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Because Plaintiff has the burden of proof, and has failed to submit any value evidence pertaining to the remodel, the court concludes that the exception RMV determined by the assessor and sustained by the Board should remain undisturbed.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and allows that burden to be met by a preponderance of the evidence.

Foley v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090832d (or.tax 7-13-2010) · filed 2010-07-13

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (2005) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proof and prove the requested real market values and assessed values.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a tax appeal.

Deschutes Landing v. Deschutes County, Tc-Md 090599c (or.tax 1-13-2011) · filed 2011-01-13

Plaintiff has the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427. Having failed to offer any evidence, the court accepts Defendant's report that Lots 34 and 35 were 90 percent complete and Lots 36 and 37 were 83 percent complete.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court.

Oregon Wine Servs. v. Yamhill Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 090385c (or.tax 1-13-2011) · filed 2011-01-13

The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a "preponderance" of the evidence and falls upon "the party seeking affirmative relief" which, in this case, is Plaintiff. ORS 305.427. ... In the end, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish an error in the record assessment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Taxpayers must prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs in this case have not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Ramineni v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100283d (or.tax 2-9-2011) · filed 2011-02-09

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof because Plaintiff's allegation was not supported.

A party seeking affirmative relief in tax court must prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Oregon v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100395d (or.tax 2-28-2011) · filed 2011-02-28

The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ... Because Plaintiff's modified income approach and market approach do not fulfill the statutory requirements of acceptable methods to determine real market value, Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court must prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lane County Assessor v. Spencer, Tc-Md 100255 (or.tax 2-28-2011) · filed 2011-02-28

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427 (2009) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden on the taxpayer to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cruz v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101065b (or.tax 3-1-2011) · filed 2011-03-01

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the three children claimed as dependents are "citizens or nationals of the United States" or "resident[s] of the United States or a country contiguous to the United States" as required by IRC section 152 (b)(3)(A). Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the three children lived with Plaintiff for more than one-half of the 2009 tax year at issue, as required by ORS 315.262.

The party seeking affirmative relief must prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yamhill Cty. Ass. v. Hopp, Tc-Md 090781d (or.tax 3-14-2011) · filed 2011-03-14

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a claim by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Brown, Tc-Md 090783b (or.tax 3-14-2011) · filed 2011-03-14

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving its claim by a preponderance of the evidence, even when the opposing party's evidence is inadequate.

Yamhill Cty. Asse. v. Johnson Living Trust, Tc-Md 090691b (or.tax 3-14-2011) · filed 2011-03-14

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427. ... Even though Defendant's evidence does not adequately address the highest and best use concern raised by the court, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Plaintiff submitted no evidence. Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a claim by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yamhill County Assessor v. Brown, Tc-Md 090782b (or.tax 3-14-2011) · filed 2011-03-14

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court bears the burden of proving its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Calabria v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 100360b (or.tax 3-16-2011) · filed 2011-03-16

Plaintiffs must establish their claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." ... After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof to support their requested 2009-10 real market value for the subject property. Plaintiffs did carry their burden of proof to support their request that as of the assessment date there should be no exception real market value added to the tax roll for the subject property.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Contreras v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100928d (or.tax 3-17-2011) · filed 2011-03-17

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff submitted no evidence of the total amount of support provided for the claimed dependents. The court cannot conclude that the money transferred was more than one-half of the support for each of the claimed dependents in each of the tax years at issue.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Namah v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 100408b (or.tax 3-28-2011) · filed 2011-03-28

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427 (2009) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief in tax court.

Roberge v. Hood River County Assessor, Tc-Md 100030b (or.tax 3-29-2011) · filed 2011-03-29

Plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proof. Plaintiffs did not submit an appraisal report prepared as of the date of assessment.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the taxpayer, who must establish the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Roeder v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 100487b (or.tax 4-11-2011) · filed 2011-04-11

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof with respect to the value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2009, assessment date.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Backen v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101149d (or.tax 6-6-2011) · filed 2011-06-06

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 . ... After careful consideration of the testimony, the court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Lane County v. McDougal, Tc-Md 100136d (or.tax 6-7-2011) · filed 2011-06-07

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 . ... The court finds Plaintiff's evidence in support of its indicated value insufficient with respect to highest and best use and lacking in comparability to the subject property.