Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.427

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

Lane County v. Babcock Properties, Tc-Md 100131d (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 . 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 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev ., 4 OTR 302 (1971)). 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.

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

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

"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 . Plaintiffs must establish their claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev. , TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

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.

Burr. Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100329d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court bears the burden of proof and must satisfy it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100326d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burr. Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100328d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burr. Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100338d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof.

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

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100330d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof. ... Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burrill Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100327d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burrill Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100324d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and allows a preponderance of the evidence to satisfy it.

Burr. Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100337d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof.

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

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100332d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burrill Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100331d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100335d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, who can meet it with a preponderance of the evidence.

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100336d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

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.

Burr. Resou. v. Jackson County Assessor, Tc-Md 100334d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

"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 . ... Plaintiffs have failed to carry their 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.

Hiatt v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101271d (or.tax 6-15-2011) · filed 2011-06-15

"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 . ... Plaintiffs clearly have failed to carry their burden of proof by failing to prove that the requested charitable donation deductions should be allowed and failing to specify the requested deduction for tax year 2008.

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

Aguirre v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101160c (or.tax 6-30-2011) · filed 2011-06-30

Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief and, therefore, has the burden of proof. She must therefore establish all elements of the case by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

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

Morse Hays v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 100697c (or.tax 7-5-2011) · filed 2011-07-05

"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 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 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff failed to carry its 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.

Murray v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101018b (or.tax 8-23-2011) · filed 2011-08-23

Defendant, having raised the issue of Plaintiffs' income, 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 (emphasis added). Defendant, rather than Plaintiffs, raised the issue of Plaintiffs' tax year 2009 income. Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs' tax year 2009 income is other than the amount reported by Plaintiffs and has, therefore, failed to meet the burden of proof.

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

Anderson v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 110182d (or.tax 8-31-2011) · filed 2011-08-31

"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 . ... In this case and with respect to the comparable sales approach, Plaintiffs have not met their burden.

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

Martin v. Yamhill County Assessor, Tc-Md 110246d (or.tax 9-1-2011) · filed 2011-09-01

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof on Plaintiff, who is "the party seeking affirmative relief." ... Plaintiff failed to satisfy 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.

Lane County Assr. v. Authentic Models, Tc-Md 110145d (or.tax 10-26-2011) · filed 2011-10-26

Plaintiff seeks affirmative relief and therefore bears the burden of proof. ... Because Plaintiff's comparable sales and income approaches lack reliable comparable sales, 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.

Pearce v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100892c (or.tax 10-31-2011) · filed 2011-10-31

The burden of proof — a preponderance of the evidence — falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 (2009). Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of proof in regards to accelerated depreciation through cost segregation.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving an incorrect tax roll value on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Brashnyk v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 110308 (or.tax 12-12-2011) · filed 2011-12-12

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property's real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.

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

Village at Main St v. Clackamas Cty., Tc-Md 090679d (or.tax 12-13-2011) · filed 2011-12-13

Plaintiff provided no evidence of the subject property's real market value as of the assessment date, January 1, 2008. ... After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

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

Village Resi. LLC v. Clack. Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 090855b (or.tax 12-13-2011) · filed 2011-12-13

"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 . ... After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that 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.

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

After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that 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.

Village at Main St. v. Clackamas Cty., Tc-Md 070501d (or.tax 12-13-2011) · filed 2011-12-13

"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 . ... Plaintiff submitted no cost information. ... Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof.

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

Hannegan v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-01-11

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof in tax court proceedings upon the party seeking affirmative relief. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden regarding his claimed change of domicile between February 18, 2007 and August 31, 2007.

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

Hillenga v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-03-09

“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. ... The court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and the court allows Plaintiffs‟ claimed 2004 net operating loss carry over.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, which must provide competent evidence to support its requested value.

Cline Butte Utilities v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2012-04-30

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof, and initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... In the present matter, Plaintiff has presented nothing more than roll values of other allegedly similar properties. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite 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.

Brothers v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-04-30

Plaintiffs‟ burden is to provide a preponderance of evidence in support of their position, but on this point they have provided no evidence.

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof, and insufficient evidence defeats that party’s claim.

Triana v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-05-09

In all matters before this court, “[t]he burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427. ... The evidence before the court is insufficient to conclude that Ana cleared the way for Lilia to claim an exemption for Alanis by declining to accept the tax benefits to which she herself was entitled.

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

Clapa v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-05-21

“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 has failed to carry his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a party seeking affirmative relief to prove its claim.

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

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is not responsible for payment of the increased tax liability for the subject property. ORS 305.427. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof.

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

Allcott v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-10-15

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property‟s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of proof.

Section 305.427 permits a preponderance of the evidence to satisfy the burden of proof in a tax appeal.

CatLand v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2012-10-30

“[A] preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof.” ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff failed to carry its burden in several respects.

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

Sandy Inn OMRS LLC v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2012-12-17

“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. ... 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 competent evidence.

Han v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2012-12-18

Plaintiff failed to present the court with “competent evidence” of the RMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2011, and thus has not met its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires plaintiffs in a tax appeal to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Dale v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2013-03-26

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof.

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court bears the burden of proof, which requires a preponderance of the evidence.

Scott v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-06-24

The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof with respect to the remaining expenses claimed on his proposed returns for the 2007 and 2008 tax years.

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.

Akkal v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2013-12-03

After careful review of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof.

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

Halvorson v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2014-01-31

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof.

A taxpayer seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of producing evidence that its unprotected sales were trivial.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2024-06-20

In this context, the burden rested on Santa Fe to come forward with evidence that the sales were trivial.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer appealing the denial of a tax credit to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Briggs v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 070700e (or.tax 1-30-2008) · filed 2008-01-30

When, as in this case, the Department of Revenue (department) denies the credit and the taxpayer appeals, the taxpayer must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking an exemption to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Toyota Motor v. Multnomah Cty, Tc-Md 060583c (or.tax 5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02

Under ORS 305.427 , Toyota must establish its entitlement to exemption by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Portland v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 070621c (or.tax 1-28-2009) · filed 2009-01-28

The burden is on the taxpayer to prove that a claim of exemption meets the statutory requirements.

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

Portland State Univ. v. Multnomah Co., Tc-Md 060824c (or.tax 1-29-2009) · filed 2009-01-29

The burden is on the taxpayer to prove that a claim of exemption meets the statutory requirements.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer appealing the denial of a tax credit to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tindall v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080694b (or.tax 4-17-2009) · filed 2009-04-17

When, as in this case, the Department of Revenue (department) denies the credit and the taxpayer appeals, the taxpayer must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires the taxpayer to prove claimed child care payments by a preponderance of the evidence.

Carter v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080689c (or.tax 4-30-2009) · filed 2009-04-30

Plaintiff must persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that she paid $200 each month for child care. See ORS 305.427 . ... The court finds that the weight of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff paid for child care in cash, in the amount of $2,400, in 2007.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer appealing a refund denial to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rose v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 081139b (or.tax 6-19-2009) · filed 2009-06-19

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 (2007). ... Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer claiming a religious property tax exemption to prove that the statutory requirements are met.

The Truck Stop v. Deschutes Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 090013c (or.tax 1-22-2010) · filed 2010-01-22

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that its claim of exemption meets the statutory requirements. ORS 305.427 . Here, Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence — either with its initial application to Defendant or to this court — establishing that the primary use of the subject property is the advancement of its religious purposes and goals. Thus, Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof.

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

Brueske v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 090020d (or.tax 3-3-2010) · filed 2010-03-03

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Dewane was not an Oregon domiciliary in tax years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving entitlement to a tax exemption on the taxpayer.

The Commons on Alder v. Lane Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 091164b (or.tax 4-30-2010) · filed 2010-04-30

The burden is on taxpayer to prove entitlement to an exemption. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sweet Home Emergency v. Linn Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 091500b (or.tax 9-30-2010) · filed 2010-09-30

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

Section 305.427 requires the taxpayer to prove claimed child care payments by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lib-Myagkov v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 091200c (or.tax 11-23-2010) · filed 2010-11-23

Plaintiff must persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that she paid $2400 total for child care in 2007. See ORS 305.427 (providing the applicable burden of proof). ... The court finds that the weight of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff paid for child care in cash in the amount of $2400 in 2007.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their claimed change in domicile occurred.

Dane v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100440d (or.tax 2-2-2011) · filed 2011-02-02

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Charles was not an Oregon domiciliary in tax years 2006 and 2007. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption to prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Catland v. Yamhill County Assessor, Tc-Md 100353b (or.tax 2-24-2011) · filed 2011-02-24

In exemption cases, the plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer disputing Oregon domicile to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the taxpayer was not domiciled in Oregon.

Wilhelm v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 110001b (or.tax 7-13-2011) · filed 2011-07-13

Plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not domiciled in Oregon in the 2007 tax year. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Raptor Center v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 101269b (or.tax 9-12-2011) · filed 2011-09-12

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 305.427 requires the taxpayer to prove entitlement to a property tax exemption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Farms v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100443d (or.tax 10-13-2011) · filed 2011-10-13

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has the burden of proof and has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the trains and boats are used "primarily" in harvesting.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer claiming a credit to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rangel v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-06-29

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... After carefully considering the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof with respect to claimed child care payments during the 2010 tax year.

Section 305.427 requires the taxpayer to prove claimed child care expenses by a preponderance of the evidence.

Fletcher v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-07-30

Plaintiff must persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that she paid $3,065 ... for her daughter’s child care expenses in 2008. See ORS 305.427 (providing the applicable burden of proof).

A taxpayer claiming tax credits must establish entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Brown v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-08-03

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence.

Taxpayers must prove a claimed change in domicile by a preponderance of the evidence.

Dane v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2012-08-28

Taxpayers must show this by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. This means that on the record before the court taxpayers must show that it is more likely than not that Charles abandoned his domicile in Oregon and acquired a new domicile in Nevada prior to the beginning of 2007.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove a claimed change of domicile by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ashby v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2012-11-05

must prove his intentions by a preponderance of the evi- dence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking relief to prove eligibility for forestland special assessment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rosalie Ridge LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-12-11

As the party seeking relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject property was eligible for forestland special assessment during tax year ... 2011-12. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Round Up Association v. Umatilla County Assessor · filed 2012-12-28

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove the gift-or-giving element of a claimed charitable property tax exemption by a preponderance of the evidence.

Serenity Lane, Inc. v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2013-08-30

Serenity must prove the presence of “gift or giving” in its operations by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer claiming tax credits to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sinde v. Department of Revenue · filed 2013-12-03

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof and his appeal must be denied.

Section 305.427 places the burden on taxpayers to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cortez v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 070754c (or.tax 2-14-2008) · filed 2008-02-14

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers in this proceeding.

Schmidt v. Dept. of Revenue · filed 2008-09-23

As an initial matter, the law provides that taxpayers bear the burden of proof in this proceeding. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers in this proceeding.

Coleman v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2008-09-23

As an initial matter, the law provides, and taxpayers concede, that they bear the burden of proof in this proceeding. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the taxpayer in this proceeding.

Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2008-09-23

As an initial matter, the law provides, and taxpayer concedes, that she bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers in this proceeding.

Knudson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2008-09-23

As an initial matter, the law provides that taxpayers bear the burden of proof in this proceeding. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers seeking affirmative relief.

Austin v. Department of Revenue, Tc 4808 (or.tax 10-20-2009) · filed 2009-10-20

Taxpayers bear the burden of proof as the parties seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427 (2007).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers in this proceeding.

Burris v. Department of Revenue, Tc 4853 (or.tax 11-20-2009) · filed 2009-11-20

As an initial matter, the law provides that taxpayers bear the burden of proof in this proceeding. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a different personal-property value to carry the burden of proving it.

Precision Powder v. Clackamas Cty Assr., Tc-Md 070690d (or.tax 4-4-2008) · filed 2008-04-04

Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof as to the real market value of its personal property.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging added omitted-property value to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount is excessive.

Huerta v. Josephine County Assessor, Tc-Md 070688c (or.tax 7-10-2008) · filed 2008-07-10

Taxpayer has the burden of proof and must establish by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the amount of value to be added is excessive.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the plaintiff appealing a property tax assessment.

Holland v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080338c (or.tax 9-19-2008) · filed 2008-09-19

Plaintiff has the burden of proof. ORS 305.427 .

A taxpayer seeking a greater reduction in property value than the assessor recommends bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Kabir v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 080332c (or.tax 10-24-2008) · filed 2008-10-24

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that value reductions greater than those recommended by Defendant are warranted. ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires a property tax appellant to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Watson v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080313c (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 careful review of this matter, the court concludes that a preponderance of the evidence supports an RMV for Plaintiff's property, as of January 1, 2007, of $215,000.

Section 305.427 requires plaintiffs challenging an assessment to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Krebs v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080214b (or.tax 11-28-2008) · filed 2008-11-28

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

A taxpayer challenging a property valuation must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Zakharyuk v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080357b (or.tax 12-12-2008) · filed 2008-12-12

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 .

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

Drake v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080394c (or.tax 2-4-2009) · filed 2009-02-04

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. Accordingly, their appeal must be denied.

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

Beaulieu v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080172b (or.tax 2-5-2009) · filed 2009-02-05

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement in this record.

A taxpayer seeking a property value reduction must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Zinda v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080431c (or.tax 2-17-2009) · filed 2009-02-17

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 places the initial burden on the taxpayer to prove an assessment error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wong v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 080442c (or.tax 2-18-2009) · filed 2009-02-18

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Although Plaintiff, by statute, bears the initial burden of proof, the standard is a "preponderance" of the evidence, and, as explained above, that standard requires the court to make a decision based on the more convincing evidence. If Plaintiff failed on the burden of production ( i.e ., failed to introduce enough evidence to reasonably suggest any error in the value of the property), Plaintiff would lose regardless of Defendant's evidence, or lack thereof. That is not the situation in the present case.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stearns v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 080681b (or.tax 3-6-2009) · filed 2009-03-06

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 (2007). ... Plaintiff in this case has not met that statutory requirement.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, who must support a challenge to property values with evidence.

Flynn v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080542d (or.tax 6-3-2009) · filed 2009-06-03

"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 did not carry his burden of proof and Defendant's real market values computed taking the prior year real market value and increasing that amount by a local trend factor are accepted.

Section 305.427 places on the taxpayer the burden of presenting evidence of real market value as of the assessment date.

Glover v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 090192d (or.tax 6-3-2009) · filed 2009-06-03

Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence of real market value as of the assessment date, January 1, 2008.

Section 305.427 places the initial burden of proof on the party seeking relief; in a property value appeal, the taxpayer must present evidence supporting the requested value before the burden shifts to the assessor.

Flynn v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080083d (or.tax 6-3-2009) · filed 2009-06-03

Plaintiff challenged the Notices; he had the burden of offering evidence in support of his challenge. The burden of proof shifts to Defendant after Plaintiff presents evidence in support of his requested values. Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof and Defendant's Notices are accepted.

A county assessor seeking to increase an assessed value has the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Prestwood v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080268b (or.tax 7-15-2009) · filed 2009-07-15

In seeking an increase above the BOPTA level, Defendant has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a "preponderance" of the evidence.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value bears the burden of proving the requested value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Huang v. Department of Revenue, Tc 4880 (or.tax 7-27-2009) · filed 2009-07-27

It is the opinion of this court, after reviewing the evidence, that taxpayers did not sustain their burden of proof under ORS 305.427 .

Taxpayers challenging assessed property values must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thomas v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 080284b (or.tax 8-27-2009) · filed 2009-08-27

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

Section 305.427 requires each party seeking a specific property value to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Holmes Rev. Liv. Tr. v. Desc. Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 080372b (or.tax 9-25-2009) · filed 2009-09-25

In this situation, each party has the burden of proof as to the specific value sought and must establish its case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has not met that statutory requirement. Neither has Defendant in its request for an RMV increase.

Section 305.427 places the burden on taxpayers to prove the acreage they claim qualifies for farm use special assessment.

Bernasek v. Umatilla County Assessor, Tc-Md 081035c (or.tax 10-30-2009) · filed 2009-10-30

Taxpayers have the burden of proof. ORS 305.427 . Taxpayers were aware that there was disagreement about the amount of land involved in the DCP Program. Given the nature of the evidence, and the fact that taxpayer must shoulder the burden of proof, the court concludes that 24.8 acres were under the DCP Program, and that those 24.8 acres qualified for farm use special assessment.

Section 305.427 places the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the assessment was improper.

Smull Family Trust v. Polk County Assr., Tc-Md 090830b (or.tax 1-8-2010) · filed 2010-01-08

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Defendant's assessment of additional taxes under ORS 311.205 was improper. See ORS 305.427 .

Section 305.427 requires an assessor seeking an increase in assessed value to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lane Cty. Assessor v. Stingray Holdings, Tc-Md 080189 (or.tax 3-10-2010) · filed 2010-03-10

In such appeals, Assessor has the burden of proof and must establish the case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427 . ... Assessor in this case has not met that statutory requirement.

A taxpayer seeking a property assessment reduction must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mhlin v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 090788b (or.tax 5-12-2010) · filed 2010-05-12

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

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

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 his 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.

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

Lafayette Place Prop. v. Yamhill Cty., Tc-Md 090487b (or.tax 9-21-2010) · filed 2010-09-21

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

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

Barbur Plaza v. Multnomah Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 090681b (or.tax 9-30-2010) · filed 2010-09-30

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has clearly met that statutory requirement.

Taxpayers seeking a reduction in real market value must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tanatchangsang v. Multnomah Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 100364b (or.tax 10-5-2010) · filed 2010-10-05

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.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in property value must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yarbrough v. Marion County Assessor, Tc-Md 090332b (or.tax 12-3-2010) · filed 2010-12-03

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

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging an assessed value to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Dedlovskiy v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100313b (or.tax 12-10-2010) · filed 2010-12-10

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

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Matzke v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100265b (or.tax 12-10-2010) · filed 2010-12-10

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

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers seeking a reduction in real market value to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Karge v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 100167b (or.tax 12-10-2010) · filed 2010-12-10

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 seeking a lower real market value to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Murray v. Wasco County Assessor, Tc-Md 100295d (or.tax 2-22-2011) · filed 2011-02-22

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

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a reduction in assessed value to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Designs v. Multnomah Cnty. Asses., Tc-Md 100663b (or.tax 2-24-2011) · filed 2011-02-24

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a plaintiff challenging a property tax assessment to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

I-105 Secure Storage v. Lane Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100150 (or.tax 3-24-2011) · filed 2011-03-24

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a property owner seeking a reduced real market value to prove the requested value by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... In short, Plaintiff did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence its requested real market value for the subject property as of January 1, 2009.

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

Custodian v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 100192b (or.tax 3-30-2011) · filed 2011-03-30

However, Defendant does not have 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 (2009) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a plaintiff challenging real market value to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Montsteve Invest. v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 100154 (or.tax 3-30-2011) · filed 2011-03-30

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... The court finds that Plaintiff here failed to meet the burden of proof with respect to its indicated value under the cost approach.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the taxpayer seeking affirmative relief, who must support a proposed real market value with competent evidence.

J. R. Golf Serv. v. Benton County Assessor, Tc-Md 100588b (or.tax 4-7-2011) · filed 2011-04-07

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. ... In order to sustain the burden of proof, Plaintiff must provide competent evidence supporting Plaintiff's determination of the real market value.

A plaintiff challenging real market value must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Roeder Holdings v. Deschutes Cty. Asses., Tc-Md 100511b (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 requires the party seeking a property tax valuation change to prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Burrill Resources v. Jackson Cty. Assess., Tc-Md 100333d (or.tax 6-9-2011) · filed 2011-06-09

Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the properties identified by Plaintiffs are, in fact, comparable to the subject property.

Section 305.427 requires a plaintiff challenging real market value to prove its proposed value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reedway Place v. Multnomah Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100597b (or.tax 6-10-2011) · filed 2011-06-10

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the real market value of the subject property was $25,000 as of January 1, 2009.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in property value must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, including the expenses used in an income approach.

Colonial Plaza v. Washington Cty. Asse., Tc-Md 100396b (or.tax 6-28-2011) · filed 2011-06-28

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... The court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof concerning expenses for the subject property and finds Defendant's expense ratio of 29 percent to be reasonable.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging real market value to prove its requested value by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... After carefully considering the evidence and testimony presented, the court finds that Plaintiff did not prove its requested real market value of $10.5 million by a preponderance of the evidence.

A party seeking to increase a property's assessed value bears the burden of proving its proposed value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Jefferson Cty. Assessor v. Siegenhagen, Tc-Md 100375c (or.tax 10-14-2011) · filed 2011-10-14

The county, as Plaintiff, has the burden of proof in its quest to increase the RMV of the subject property back to the value it placed on the property before BOPTA reduced the RMV. ORS 305.427 . The burden of proof in this court is a preponderance of the evidence, which means "the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Id. ; Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 , 312 (1971) (citation omitted). ... Because Plaintiff did not present any evidence beyond the testimony of its appraiser regarding the estimated cost to build the subject property, without reference to a specific methodology or index for determining costs, this court finds that Plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving an incorrect property tax value on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Hausler v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110509d (or.tax 11-15-2011) · filed 2011-11-15

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property's land real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a reduced property assessment to prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

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 . ... The court concludes that Plaintiff presented a prima facie case that there was an error in the record assessment, and that the preponderance of the evidence shows that a reduction in the real market value of the subject property is warranted.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers appealing a property valuation to prove their requested values by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alberts Development v. Lane County, Tc-Md 100522 (or.tax 12-12-2011) · filed 2011-12-12

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 . ... Plaintiffs' value evidence is "inconclusive [and] unpersuasive" in several respects described above, thus, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of proof.

The taxpayer seeking a reduction in assessed value must prove an error in the assessment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sheikh v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2011-12-14

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 places the burden of proving an incorrect property value on the party seeking relief and allows the court to determine value from the parties’ evidence even when that burden is not met.

Berrey v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2011-12-14

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property‟s land real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof. ... Even though the burden has not shifted, the court has jurisdiction to determine the “real market value or correct valuation on the basis of the evidence pleaded by the parties.” ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking relief must prove an error in the assessment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sheikh v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110224c (or.tax 12-14-2011) · filed 2011-12-14

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 . ... Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving an incorrect property tax value on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Mary Kent Living Trust v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2011-12-15

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s land real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging an assessment to prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor · filed 2011-12-16

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 requires taxpayers challenging a property value to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Metzler v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2011-12-23

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in property value must prove the requested reduction by a preponderance of the evidence.

Armstrong World Industries v. Columbia County Assessor and Department of Revenue · filed 2011-12-30

After carefully considering the evidence and testimony, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any reduction in the value of the subject property is merited.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value bears the burden of proving that the value on the tax roll is incorrect.

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

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving that a property’s real market value on the tax roll is incorrect on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Brown v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-01-10

The court explained that as the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in real market value bears the burden of proving that the value on the tax roll is wrong.

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

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the subject property‟s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in assessed real market value must prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reynolds Properties LLC v. Linn County Assessor · filed 2012-01-12

By statute, Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish an error in the record assessment by a “preponderance” of the evidence.

A taxpayer appealing a property valuation must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Knights Bridge Crossing LLC v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2012-01-23

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging an assessed value to prove the requested value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yarbrough v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-01-26

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking a reduction in a property's real market value bears the burden of proving that the value on the tax roll is incorrect.

Patel v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-01-31

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property‟s land real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a property value reduction to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Harris Family Trust v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-02-23

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers seeking a lower property tax valuation to prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mayer v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-03-13

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving that a property's tax roll value is incorrect on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Danielson v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-03-13

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer appealing real market value to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Koch Inc. v. Malheur County Assessor · filed 2012-03-16

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff presented no other evidence of the 2010-11 real market value and has not met its burden of proof.

A party seeking a reduction in assessed real market value bears the burden of proving that the value on the tax roll is incorrect.

GP W. 3rd Ave. v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-04-02

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property‟s real market value is incorrect on the tax roll. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer challenging a property's real market value to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Fair Oaks Apartments LLC v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2012-04-03

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

A taxpayer challenging a property's real market value must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence and present competent evidence of value.

Mela v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-04-11

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs failed to present the court with “competent evidence” of the real market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2010, and have not, therefore, met their burden of proof.

A taxpayer challenging a property tax assessment must prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Voronaeff v. Crook County Assessor · filed 2012-04-25

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. ... After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there is an error in the record assessments for all three properties for the 2010-11 tax year.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a requested property tax reduction on the party seeking it, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Toy Box Maxi-Storage LLC v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2012-05-31

The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427 (2005). ... Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking to change an assessment to prove an error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sessums v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-06-07

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. ... Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.

A taxpayer seeking a change in assessed value must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Greene v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2012-07-10

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Spears v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-07-13

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.