Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.427

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

Farmers Direct, Inc. v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2018-03-20

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

In Tax Court proceedings, each party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bence Living Trust v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2018-03-20

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on its claim to decrease the 2016- 17 exception value to $0. Defendant bears the burden on its claim to increase the exception value to $44,080.

A party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bay Area Athletic Club v. Coos County Assessor · filed 2018-03-23

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Feola v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-03-27

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” ORS 305.427; Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

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

Schechtel v. Klamath County Assessor · filed 2018-03-30

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

A taxpayer seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Peterson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-04-10

Because Peterson is the party seeking affirmative relief, she must bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, including the department when it requests an increased assessment.

Lamka v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-04-10

The party seeking affirmative relief must bear the burden of proof. ... The department must bear the burden as to its requests to further increase Lamka’s 2013 and 2014 income and as to the recapture of depreciation on the Hummer.

The party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tjaden v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-06-01

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

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

Gordon v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-06-26

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence.

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

Commons at Cedar Mill v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2018-07-31

In tax court proceedings, “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.” ORS 305.427. ... Defendant offered no evidence to rebut Grodahl’s statement. Accordingly, the court is persuaded that, more likely than not, no application for low income housing special assessment was ever submitted for the subject property.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking a change in property value to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Head v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2018-08-06

The proponent of an issue before the court bears the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Head will have the burden of proof to decrease the property values, and conversely, Defendant will have the burden for an increase in values.

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

Ren v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-08-23

“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. ... Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled an alimony deduction in 2014.

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

Pearce v. Josephine County Assessor · filed 2018-09-18

In cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief, here the Plaintiff, bears the burden of proof and must establish his case by a “preponderance” of the evidence.

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

Roy v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-09-25

“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[,]” which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

The party seeking affirmative relief in Oregon Tax Court bears the burden of proving the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Khalaf v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-09-25

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence.

A taxpayer seeking relief from a deficiency assessment bears the burden of proof, and the department’s alternative theory for the same deficiency does not shift that burden.

Carson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-10-09

ORS 305.427 provides the determining language: “The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” Plaintiffs, as the party seeking relief from the 2010 NODA, bore the burden of proof to establish at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were not domiciled in Oregon, and that the income was not Oregon source income.

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

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-10-10

Given the inconsistencies between taxpayer’s testimony and the written evidence, taxpayer has not borne her burden of proof. See ORS 305.427.

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Marek v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-10-16

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a ... “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Although much of Marek’s accounting and tax returns contain errors, he has provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof that he made payments to V.com from which he attributed gross income.

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

O'Connor v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2018-11-14

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption bears the ultimate burden of proof and must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Int'l Leadership Academy v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2018-12-07

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

A party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Classic American Homes v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2019-01-08

As the parties seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

DeGroat v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-02-11

When the department denies a deduction and a taxpayer appeals, the taxpayer bears the burden of show- ing by a preponderance of the evidence that the deduction is allowable.

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

Drentlaw v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-02-12

“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. ... They failed to provide evidence breaking down the payments based on services received (television, internet, etc.) and they failed to submit evidence from which the court can determine the amounts of business and personal usage of the internet. No further home office deduction is supported.

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.

Briesmeister v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-03-19

“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.

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

Anderson v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2019-03-19

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

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

Covington v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2019-04-08

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

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lapato v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-04-17

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief, here the Plaintiffs, bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Almodovar v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-04-22

“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. ... Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to deductions in 2014 or 2016 for employee business expenses under IRC section 162.

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.

Avakian v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-06-21

After careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bella-Genik’s gross income should be reduced based on additional COGS of $399,902.80 for the 2012 tax year.

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

Larios v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-07-19

Consequently, Larios has failed to meet her burden of proof that she made payments to Trapala.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on a party seeking affirmative relief and allows the burden of going forward with evidence to shift.

Rankin v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2019-07-22

A party seeking affirmative relief in this court must bear the burden of proof, with the burden of going forward with the evidence shifting as in other civil litigation. See ORS 305.427. Here, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove the subject incurred no exception value at all, and Defendant’s burden to prove any exception value above the amount already on the tax roll.

Section 305.427 requires plaintiffs seeking a property tax valuation reduction to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mughal v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2019-07-26

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... The court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof as to the value of the subject property.

In Tax Court proceedings, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Winn v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-07-29

“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. ... Although Plaintiff’s testified credibly that she used her cell phone for business purposes, she did not present adequate evidence from which to estimate the amount of business use. Because the court cannot make a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s business use of her cell phone, no deduction is allowed.

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

Evans v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-08-14

Because Plaintiffs are the only parties seeking relief from the court, they must bear the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers seeking to overturn a Department of Revenue determination.

Hanson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-09-26

Because Plaintiffs seek to have Defendant’s determination overturned, they must bear the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427.

In Tax Court proceedings and appeals, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof, which a preponderance of the evidence satisfies.

Morrison v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-10-14

“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.

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

Murphy v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2019-10-15

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

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to a tax credit by a preponderance of the evidence.

Colin v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-11-12

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Biege v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-11-15

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Shadbolt v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-11-22

The burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief; in this case, Plaintiffs. ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to their suspended loss of $38,185 carried over into 2008.

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

Lydon v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2019-11-22

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish their case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... However, an adjustment for imputed rent was not contained in Defendant’s audit or assessment, and thus Defendant had the burden of proof at trial to present evidence on that issue. Without evidence on the value of the lost rent, the court cannot make an adjustment.

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

Brown v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-08-15

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief; the Department bears that burden when it first challenges a dependent claim at trial.

Donohoe v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-08-23

Because the issue was raised for the first time at trial, the Department bears the burden of proof on that issue. See ORS 305.427 (the burden of proof falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief).

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

Columbia Empire Region Volleyball Association v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-08-30

As the party seeking relief, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Smith v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-13

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they had “effected a change of domicile” from Oregon to Arizona in 2012 and were not domiciled in Oregon for the full 2013 tax year. See ORS 305.427.

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

Mendoza v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-14

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 on taxpayers seeking relief to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, but that burden does not justify an auditor’s failure to consider timely submitted documents.

Enyart v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-15

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... However, the court does not agree that an auditor’s failure to consider documents is equivalent to an auditor’s finding that the documents provided are insufficient or unpersuasive. In this case, the auditor admitted he was unable to consider the documentation provided; thus, he could not have concluded that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof. That conclusion does not reverse the burden of proof.

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

Comcast Corp. III v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 4909) · filed 2016-09-15

In the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief—in this case, taxpayer— bears the burden of proof, and a preponderance of the evi- dence is sufficient to sustain such burden. ORS 305.427.

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

Chaussee v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-09-15

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving their case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427. Chaussee’s testimony is insufficient to overcome Plaintiffs’ written answers to the questionnaire, the lack of corroboration about the type(s) of trees being grown, and Plaintiffs’ admission that they have no intent to harvest the trees, as required by ORS 321.257(2).

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

Barnett v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-19

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

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

Rogers v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-20

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof under ... ORS 305.427.

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

Stark Firs Management Inc v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-29

“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. Plaintiffs must establish their claim “by a preponderance of the evidence[,]” which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

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

Lawson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-09-29

Plaintiff must establish her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Morgan v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-10-13

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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

Moffitt v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-10-18

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Northwest Earth Institute v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-11-07

As the party seeking relief, NWEI bears the ultimate 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 value to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Curtis v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2016-11-07

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

Section 305.427 places on the taxpayer the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a property tax exemption claim meets the statutory requirements.

Tivnu: Building Justice v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2016-11-15

The burden of proof rests on the taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a claim for property tax exemption meets the statutory requirements.

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

Carson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-11-18

As the party seeking relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Chao v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-11-22

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party ... seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Earth Science Products Corp v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2016-12-09

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... The court further finds Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject property qualified for special assessment under ORS 308A.062 for the 2013-14 tax year.

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

Garrison v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-12-28

Plaintiff is the party seeking relief in this matter and, therefore, bears the burden of proof to substantiate his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427; Reed, 310 Or at 265.

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

Harris v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-01-04

After careful consideration, the court finds that Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to any deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years.

A taxpayer seeking relief bears the ultimate burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Coast Range Association v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2017-01-13

As the party seeking relief, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Balvaneda v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-01-25

Second, in cases before the tax court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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

Prock v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2017-02-06

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

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

Heckathorn v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-02-07

As the parties seeking affirmative relief from the court, it is incumbent on Plaintiffs to bear the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427. That burden is sustained by a “preponderance of the evidence”; that is, by a showing that “the facts asserted are more probably true than false.”

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

Circle of Children v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2017-02-08

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

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

Tone v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-02-24

“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 her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.”

Once a taxpayer establishes a prima facie refund claim, Section 305.427 places the burden of going forward with evidence on the department.

Robertson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-02-24

It is Defendant’s burden to put forward evidence of the terms of any such agreement in order to overcome Plaintiffs’ prima facie claim to a refund under ORS 305.270(1) and 314.415(1). See ORS 305.427.

Once a taxpayer establishes a prima facie claim to a refund, the department bears the burden of producing evidence to overcome it.

Gooding v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-02-24

It is Defendant’s burden to put forward evidence of the terms of any such agreement in order to overcome Plaintiff’s prima facie claim to a refund under ORS 305.270(1) and ORS 314.415(1). See ORS 305.427.

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

Waldron v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-03-06

“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. Plaintiffs must establish their claim “by a preponderance of the evidence[,]” which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.”

The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

May v. Washington County Assessor and Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-03-08

Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief ... and, therefore, has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Cancelosi v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-03-08

Plaintiffs, as the party seeking relief from the court, must bear the burden of proof in this case. ORS 305.427.

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

Clark v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2017-03-16

The burden of proof requires that the party seeking relief (Plaintiff in this case) provide evidence to support their argument. In this case Plaintiff’s evidence is unpersuasive. Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer seeking a deduction to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Albee v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-03-31

“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. ... Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he “normally” worked in the Salem metropolitan area.

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

Fischer, Weddle v. Dept. of Rev · filed 2017-04-18

Plaintiffs, as the party requesting relief from the court, must bear the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on taxpayers to provide evidence showing their entitlement to relief, including evidence that a claimed mileage expense would not be reimbursed.

Zaremskiy v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-04-25

It is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to put forward the evidence to show their entitlement to relief from the court.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief, including the Department of Revenue when it seeks to reverse a previously allowed deduction.

Wiley v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-04-28

The burden of proof falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427. With respect to the first issue, Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief and, therefore, bear the burden of proof. With respect to the second issue, Defendant seeks relief from the Conference Decision and, therefore, bears the burden of proof.

A taxpayer seeking a lower property value must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rouda v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2017-04-28

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Lafoca v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-05-09

Second, in cases before the court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a party seeking a change in tax roll value to prove entitlement to that change by a preponderance of the evidence.

Parkway Woods v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-05-18

Parties asking for a change in the real market value on the tax roll must prove they are entitled to it by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Plaintiffs have not borne their burden to show the tax roll value should be reduced.

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

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

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer seeking relief to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property qualifies for exemption.

Church of Christ v. Linn County Assessor · filed 2017-06-06

As the party seeking affirmative relief, it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the subject property is entitled to exemption. See ORS 305.427.

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

Prospect Community Club v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2017-06-21

The burden of establishing entitlement to an exemption ... is on the taxpayer claiming the exemption, and the entitlement must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption to prove that the claim meets statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Willamette Table Tennis Club v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2017-07-10

The burden of proof rests on the taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a claim for property tax exemption meets the statutory requirements.

In Tax Court cases, the party seeking affirmative relief must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Spier v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-07-18

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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

Hannon v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-07-18

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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

Wait v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2017-07-24

Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief and, therefore, must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer to prove where its costs of performance were incurred when that fact determines the tax owed.

Apollo Education Group, Inc. and Subs v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-08-24

For the period ending 2011, Plaintiffs did not submit a cost study showing where its costs of performance were incurred. Plaintiffs therefore did not meet their burden of proof as to the period ending 2011. See ORS 305.427.

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

Schwarz v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-09-19

Plaintiffs must establish their claim “by a preponderance of the evidence[,]” which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.”

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and makes a preponderance of the evidence sufficient in proceedings before a tax court magistrate.

Lil Pantry Market & Deli LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-09-29

Under ORS 305.427, “a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof” in proceedings before a magistrate of the tax court. The party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof in the proceeding. ORS 305.427.

A party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Morris v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-10-17

Morris did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she would not have been reimbursed by her employer for travel to temporary work locations during the 2012 tax year.

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

Mantei v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2017-10-31

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s evidence is unpersuasive and Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on taxpayers contesting income and deduction determinations.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2017-11-07

As to each issue, Plaintiffs must bear the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking a property tax exemption must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property meets the exemption requirements.

Vedanta Soc'y of Portland, Or. v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-06-12

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that those parts of the subject property were used ... primarily for religious purposes rather than for personal purposes by the caretakers. Plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof with respect to those parts of the subject property.

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

Reynolds v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-07-24

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Smith v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2015-08-07

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiffs have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject property’s real market value was $127,598 as of January 1, 2014.

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

Oldenburg v. Wasco County Assessor · filed 2015-08-10

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

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

Christian Church Homes of Or. v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2015-08-17

In all proceedings before the tax court, the party seeking affirmative relief carries the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief and therefore must prove its case by “a preponderance of the evidence, which means ‘the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.’” Yarbrough v. Dept. of Rev., 21 OTR 40, 44 (2012) (quoting Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971)). ... Here, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to show that it submitted a late filing fee with its April 14 exemption application for the 2014-15 tax year. As such, Plaintiff has not shown that it complied with the late filing provisions of ORS 307.242(3)(b).

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

Elkin v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2015-08-18

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

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

Davis v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-08-28

Plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof.

A taxpayer claiming a property tax exemption bears the burden of proving that the property meets the statutory requirements.

Full Circle Family Church v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2015-09-09

“The burden is upon the taxpayer to prove that a claim of exemption meets the statutory requirements.” Golden Writ of God v. Dept. of Rev. (Golden Writ of God), 300 Or 479, 483, 713 P2d 605 (1986); see ORS 305.427.

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

At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue · filed 2015-09-11

The appeal involves AT&T’s request for a refund, and as the party seeking affirmative relief, AT&T bears the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427 (in Tax Court pro- ceedings “and upon appeal therefrom,” “[t]he burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief”).

A party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court proceedings or an appeal from them bears the burden of proof.

AT&T Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-09-11

The appeal involves AT&T’s request for a refund, and as the party seeking affirmative relief, AT&T bears the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party who initiates a property tax appeal.

Young v. Klamath County Assessor · filed 2015-09-14

Plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled trial. Plaintiff initiated the appeal and, under Oregon law, had the statutory burden of proof. See generally ORS 305.427. Under these circumstances, the court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal should be, and is hereby, dismissed for lack of prosecution.

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

Buckles v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2015-09-28

In all proceedings before the tax court, the burden of proof falls on the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427.

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

Chapman v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-09-29

Plaintiff is the party seeking relief in this matter and she, therefore, bears the burden of proof to substantiate her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Walker v. Josephine County Assessor · filed 2015-10-09

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 Plaintiffs.

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving a property tax appeal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruthardt v. Wasco County Assessor · filed 2015-10-20

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

Section 305.427 places the burden on the party seeking affirmative relief to prove an assessment error by a preponderance of the evidence.

Courier v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2015-10-26

Plaintiff initiated the appeal and is the party seeking affirmative relief. That being the case, Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish an error in the record assessment by a preponderance of the evidence to prevail. See ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer seeking affirmative relief in a property tax appeal must prove an error in the assessed value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sharkalope Industries LLC v. Tillamook County Assessor · filed 2015-10-27

Because Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief in this appeal, it has the burden of proof and must prove, by a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence, that there is an error in the real market value appearing on the assessment and tax rolls. ORS 305.427; Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

The party seeking affirmative relief in a Tax Court magistrate proceeding bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

In proceedings before a magistrate of the Tax Court the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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

Schmidt v. Harney County Assessor · filed 2015-11-02

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.

In a property tax appeal, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the claimed value by a preponderance of the evidence.

Murray v. Wasco County Assessor · filed 2015-11-06

Plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a property tax appeal by a preponderance of the evidence on the plaintiff.

Lopez v. Curry County Assessor · filed 2015-11-17

Plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Cause v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-11-19

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they had effected a change in domicile from Oregon to Washington as of August 16, 2011.

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

Scenic Cold Storage LLC v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-12-01

The burden of proof falls on Plaintiff, the party seeking affirmative relief from the tax assessment. See ORS 305.427. Plaintiff will have proved its case if a “preponderance of the evidence” shows it is entitled to relief. See id.

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

Park Development Inc. v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-12-01

The burden of proof falls on Plaintiff, the party seeking affirmative relief from the tax assessment. See ORS 305.427. Plaintiff will have proved its case if a “preponderance of the evidence” shows it is entitled to relief.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a value below BOPTA’s determination on the taxpayer and the burden of proving a higher value on the department and county.

Ellison I v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-12-03

Taxpayer bears the burden of proof as to any value less than that found by BOPTA. The department and county bear the burden of proof as to any value in excess of that found by BOPTA. ORS 305.427.

A plaintiff challenging tax assessments must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Conway v. Dept. of Rev · filed 2015-12-04

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

Section 305.427 places the burden on a taxpayer to prove that invoiced charges should be excluded from the taxable wholesale sales price.

Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-12-11

The burden of proof to provide such evidence falls upon Plaintiff and was not met in this case.

A taxpayer seeking tax credits must prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stade v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-01-21

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence; the burden of persuasion remains with that party even if the burden of production shifts.

Weber v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2016-01-27

And in any event, the burden of persuasion remains on Plaintiffs—they must persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that a reduction in value is warranted. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not carried that burden.

A party seeking affirmative relief must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Began v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-12

Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief; therefore, he must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the taxpayer.

Wassom v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-02-17

A taxpayer bears the burden of proof. ORS 305.427. ... After careful consideration, the court concluded that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof with respect to 4,711 miles of business mileage expense, and have failed to meet their burden of proof on the remaining issues.

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

Kuhn v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2016-02-17

Because Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief in this appeal, they have the burden of proof and must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is an error in the real market value appearing on the assessment and tax rolls. ORS 305.427; Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief in tax court and permits that party to meet it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lindquist Holdings LLC v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2016-03-14

Plaintiff must establish its claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence.”

Section 305.427 requires a plaintiff to prove its property valuation claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Depot Investors, Ltd. v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2016-03-14

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof.

A party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court bears the burden of proof, which a preponderance of the evidence can satisfy.

Depot Investors, Ltd. v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2016-03-14

The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof.

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

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

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

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court must prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence; an unsupported journal entry does not establish an increase in shareholder basis.

JPB Holdings Inc v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-03-25

As discussed above, Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the burden of proof on this issue because they did not provide evidence to substantiate a basis increase, such as documentation of money or property exchanged for a note. The mere inference that shareholder basis has increased because a journal entry indicates that it should fails to meet the requisite burden to prove that Plaintiffs made an economic outlay that would increase shareholder basis. See ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on each party seeking affirmative relief, including an assessor seeking a higher exception value.

MacRitchie v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2016-04-19

In this case, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving when the renovations were made to the subject property, whether the renovations were “improvements” justifying an exception value, and the amount of additional exception value. Defendant bears the burden of proving its contention that the exception real market value is higher than provided in its original Omitted Property Notice.

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.

Marcum v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-04-25

“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, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to any additional deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses for the 2011 tax year.

A taxpayer appealing a property valuation bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Pastega Investment Company LLC v. Benton County Assessor · filed 2016-05-06

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

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

Miller v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-05-11

“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 his claim “by a preponderance of the evidence[,] which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

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

Smith v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-05-17

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

A party seeking affirmative relief in Tax Court must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bobak v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-05-17

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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

Seghetti v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-05-23

Domicile is a question of fact that taxpayer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

The party seeking relief bears the ultimate burden of proving the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hannah v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2016-05-25

However, as the party seeking relief, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires the plaintiff to establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Earth Science Products Corp. v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2016-05-27

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

In Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wood v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-03

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Section 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief to prove an error in the assessed real market value by a preponderance of the evidence.

General Property Group LLC v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2016-06-07

Because Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief, they have the burden of proof and must establish by a “preponderance” of the evidence that there is an error in the real market value appearing on the assessment and tax rolls. ORS 305.427; Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

Taxpayers claiming dependent exemptions must prove their entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Aguirre v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-07

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... After careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to claim three dependent exemptions for their two nieces and one nephew for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years.

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

Cruthirds v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-09

“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[,]” which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.”

In Tax Court cases, the party seeking affirmative relief must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Horton v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-14

Second, in cases before the Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” ORS 305.427.

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. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-14

Defendant is the party seeking affirmative relief with respect to its two claims and, therefore, bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Wang v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-06-28

“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. ... Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of ... proof on that issue.

A party seeking affirmative relief must prove an error in the assessed real market value by a preponderance of the evidence.

General Property Group LLC v. Jackson County Assessor · filed 2016-07-01

Because Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief, it has the burden of proof and must establish by a “preponderance” of the evidence that there is an error in the real market value appearing on the assessment and tax rolls.

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

Weston v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-07-07

Plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of the evidence. ... Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he incurred a $50 expense for tax preparation fees.