Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.427

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

O'Neal v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-07-07

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. ... Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof that the boots are ordinary and necessary business expenses as opposed to nondeductible personal items.

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

Alexander v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-07-12

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 in Tax Court must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Burton v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-07-19

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 in magistrate proceedings, and a preponderance of the evidence satisfies that burden.

Christensen v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2016-08-02

In all proceedings before a magistrate of the tax court “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. ... Because this matter is presently before the court on Defendant’s Motion, Defendant bears the burden of proof.

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

Sustainable Investments, LLC v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2014-02-18

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s real market value on the assessment and tax rolls is incorrect. See ORS 305.427. 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 a case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hummel v. Union County Assessor · filed 2014-02-18

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

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

Merck v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-02-24

The party seeking affirmative relief from this court bears the burden of proof and must establish his or her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427 (2011).

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

Shirley v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-03-03

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

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

Bascue v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2014-03-03

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). If the ... evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, Plaintiffs will have failed to meet their burden of proof. See Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265, 798 P2d 235 (1990).

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

Symantec Corporation v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2014-03-17

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

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving a disputed basis on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Stuckart v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-03-17

As the party seeking ... affirmative relief, Plaintiff would bear the burden of proving at trial that his basis differs from the amount which he reported on his federal taxes and to which he stipulated. See ORS 305.427 (2013).

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

Newberg Business Center, LLC v. Yamhill County Assessor · filed 2014-03-17

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

Thompson v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-03-21

“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. ... When a taxpayer decides to pay cash for child care expenses, the taxpayer has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the total amount of the claimed expense. ... Plaintiff met her burden of proof.

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer seeking affirmative relief to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the real market value on the assessment and tax rolls is erroneous.

Eastgate Theatre Inc. v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2014-03-31

Because Plaintiff is the party seeking affirmative relief in this appeal, it has the burden of proof and must therefore 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).

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

Cooke v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-04-03

To determine whether a taxpayer is entitled to the working family credit claimed, the court weighs all of the testimony and evidence presented under a preponderance of the evidence standard, as required by ORS 305.427.

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

McIntire v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-04-04

By statute, 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 proof by a preponderance of the evidence on the party seeking affirmative relief in Oregon Tax Court.

Withnell v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-04-07

The burden of proof in the Oregon Tax Court is a preponderance of the evidence and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427. In this case, Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief and they therefore bear the burden of proof.

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

Liggett v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-04-07

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.”

Section 305.427 requires a taxpayer litigating in the Oregon Tax Court to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ferrington v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-04-28

To prevail in her dispute in the Oregon Tax Court, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate her case by a preponderance of the evidence. ... That means that she must demonstrate she is entitled to her claimed expenses by the “more convincing evidence.”

Section 305.427 assigns the burden of proving factual issues by a preponderance of the evidence to the party bearing that burden.

Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-05-15

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

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

Biss v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-05-15

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

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

Hansen v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-05-27

ORS 305.427 applies in “all proceedings” at the tax court. Oregon common law is superseded by ORS 305.427. ... Under ORS 305.427, the burden of proof is the same for both parties: the preponderance of evidence standard rather than the clear and convincing standard stated in common law or federal income tax statutes.

Section 305.427 places on a taxpayer seeking affirmative relief the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the property's real market value is incorrect on the tax roll.

Properties L. Banette v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2014-05-30

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

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

Rosas v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-06-16

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof upon the party seeking affirmative relief before the Tax Court and a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof.

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

Petticord v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2014-06-19

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). Plaintiff must present the greater weight of evidence to support his requested real market value reduction.

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

Walton v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-06-24

Plaintiff, as the party seeking affirmative relief, has the burden of proof to establish her case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427 (2011).

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

Chiles v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-07-03

“In all proceedings before * * * a magistrate of the tax court * * * a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.”

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the taxpayer and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Newspace Center for Photography v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-07-15

Plaintiff has the 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 claiming affirmative relief.

Kirwan v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-07-15

Allowable deductions from taxable income are “a matter of legislative grace and * * * the burden of clearly showing the right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.” Interstate Transit Lines v. Comm’r, 319 US 590, 592, 63 S Ct 1279 (1943); see ORS 305.427 (stating that the burden of proof falls on the party claiming affirmative relief.)

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

Johnson v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-07-23

Plaintiff has 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 the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rosalie Ridge LLC v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-07-24

ORS 305.427 requires the party seeking affirmative relief on a claim to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, the party not seeking ... affirmative relief—in this case, the county—may sometimes prevail without presenting any evidence to support that party’s own position.

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

Angel v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-07-24

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

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

Betz Evans Associates v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-08-14

The RMV of property in a given tax year is a question of fact. As in all proceedings before the tax court, the party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proving questions of fact by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. Taxpayer is the party seeking affirmative relief in this case and so has the burden of proof.

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

Stanwood v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2014-08-15

“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 shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ... “Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the subject property’s 2013-14 real market value should be reduced to $108,339. ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof.”

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

Celilo Inn LLC v. Wasco County Assessor · filed 2014-08-18

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

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

Coelho v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-08-20

This is so because Plaintiffs have the burden of proof which, under ORS 305.427, is a “preponderance” of the evidence, and the court finds that they have failed to meet their burden.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving questions of fact on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Dunzer v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-09-09

As the party requesting affirmative relief in this proceeding, taxpayer bears the burden of proof on questions of fact. ORS 305.427.

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

Dunzer v. Clatsop County Assessor · filed 2014-09-24

“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. ... “The court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof.”

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

DeBoer v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-09-25

The burden of proof in the Oregon Tax Court is a preponderance of the evidence and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief. ORS 305.427.

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

Horn v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-10-09

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

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

Gregg v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-10-13

In the Oregon Tax Court, the party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of “proving his case 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); ORS 305.427 (2013).

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

Stockwell v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2014-10-24

“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. 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]t is not enough for a taxpayer to criticize a county’s position. Taxpayers must provide competent evidence of the [real market value] of their property.” Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 324, 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59 (2002)). “[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).

Section 305.427 requires a party seeking affirmative relief to prove that the property’s real market value on the tax roll is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hansen v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2014-10-31

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject property’s RMV on the tax roll is incorrect. See ORS 305.427. Plaintiff must establish his claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence.”

Section 305.427 requires taxpayers to prove their qualification for special assessment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wehde v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-11-10

Taxpayers bear the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they qualify for special assessment. See ORS 305.427; Beddoe v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 186, 191 (1979).

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

Dorchester House Ret. Cmty. LLC v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2014-12-02

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

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

Fuller v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2014-12-31

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

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

Gossack v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-01-08

Plaintiff appeals from Defendant’s Notice of Determination and Assessment and, therefore, Plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating that either the factual or legal basis for Defendant’s assessment is in error. Buras v. Dept. of Rev. (Buras), 17 OTR 282, 285 (2004); see also ORS 305.427 (“[t]he burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief”). Because the parties have articulated no factual disagreement, Plaintiff can prevail here only if he shows a flaw in Defendant’s legal basis such that Plaintiff is “entitled to prevail as a matter of law” on the issue of the assessment. Likewise, Defendant carries the burden of proof as to its requests that the court impose additional penalties. See ORS 305.427.

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

Kohl's Homeport Associates LLC v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2015-01-14

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

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

Kohl's Department Stores v. Washington County Assessor · filed 2015-01-14

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

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

Glorietta Bay LLC v. Lincoln County Assessor · filed 2015-01-16

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... Burden of proof requires that the party seeking relief (Plaintiff in this case) provide evidence to support its argument.

The party seeking affirmative relief in the Oregon Tax Court bears the burden of proof, which a preponderance of the evidence satisfies.

Solomon v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-01-20

Under ORS 305.427, the party seeking affirmative relief in this court bears the burden of proof, and “a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof.”

The party seeking affirmative relief in the Oregon Tax Court bears the burden of proof, which a preponderance of the evidence satisfies.

Covey v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-02-09

“In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proving that his appeal was timely filed under ORS 305.280(1) and the court concludes that Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

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

Grotjohn v. Klamath County Assessor · filed 2015-02-13

“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. ... Plaintiffs failed to present any competent evidence of the subject property’s real market value as of January 1, 2013, under any of the three recognized approaches of value.

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

Schmidt v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-02-24

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

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

Asante Physician Partners v. Josephine County Assessor · filed 2015-02-27

Plaintiff, as the party seeking exemption, has the burden of proof, and must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427.

A taxpayer appealing a property valuation must prove the claimed error by a preponderance of the evidence; without persuasive valuation evidence, the taxpayer fails to meet that burden.

Shevtsov v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-03-02

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. ... Plaintiff has the burden of proof, and without any probative evidence of the property’s real market value, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof.

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

Reedal v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-03-06

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

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

Flanagan v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-03-13

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

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

Medina v. Department of Revenue · filed 2015-03-17

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears 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 affirmative relief and allows the burden of going forward with evidence to shift in tax cases.

Quines Creek General Store v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2015-04-08

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof, and “the burden of going forward with the evidence” shifts in tax matters as in other civil litigation. ORS 305.427.

A party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proving that the tax roll’s real market value is incorrect.

Yamhill House, LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2015-05-18

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 to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence; a taxpayer who does not return for cross-examination after presenting her case cannot meet that burden.

Veenendaal v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2015-05-18

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and is required by statute to prove her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. ... While that is not a particularly high standard, a party cannot meet its burden when, as in this case, the party fails to return to court and submit to cross-examination after presenting her case.

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

Stafford Hills Properties, LLC and Zupancic Rathbone Law Group PC v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2015-05-18

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

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

Garcia v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 070758d (or.tax 6-4-2008) · filed 2008-06-04

"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 [.]"

A party seeking affirmative relief must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence; sworn testimony and dated, signed receipts can meet that burden.

Rosette v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 080862d (or.tax 5-12-2009) · filed 2009-05-12

Plaintiff's sworn testimony and the nonconsecutive dated and signed receipts provide sufficient information to meet the statutory requirement of preponderance of evidence.

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090760d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090728d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090736d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090734d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090758d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4-5 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). This court has stated that it is not enough for a plaintiff to criticize a defendant's position. Poddar v. Dept. of Rev ., 18 OTR 324 , 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev. , 16 OTR 56 , 59 (2002) (citation omitted).) In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

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

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090773d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090761d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090750d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090732d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090748d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090749d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090745d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090737d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4-5 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). ... In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

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

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090740d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090747d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090743d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090771d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090769d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090752d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4-5 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). This court has stated that it is not enough for a plaintiff to criticize a defendant's position. Poddar v. Dept. of Rev ., 18 OTR 324 , 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev. , 16 OTR 56 , 59 (2002) (citation omitted).) In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090738d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090774d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090733d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090730d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090776d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill County Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090746d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

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

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

Yamhill Cty. Assessor v. Abrams, Tc-Md 090767d (or.tax 4-15-2010) · filed 2010-04-15

"[RMV] of all property, real and personal, means the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm's-length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year." There are three methods used to determine real market value: (1) the cost approach; (2) the sales-comparison or comparable sales or market approach; and (3) the income approach. Allen v. Dept. of Rev.(Allen) , 17 OTR 248 , 252 (2003). See also OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(a) (stating that all three approaches to valuation of real property must be considered, although all three may not be applicable to the valuation of the subject property). This court has statutory authority to determine value based on the evidence presented. 5 "In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *. " ORS 305.427 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4-5 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). This court has stated that it is not enough for a plaintiff to criticize a defendant's position. Poddar v. Dept. of Rev ., 18 OTR 324 , 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev. , 16 OTR 56 , 59 (2002) (citation omitted).) In the matter before the court, Plaintiff is "seeking affirmative relief" from the real market value determined by the Yamhill County Board of Property Appeals; thus, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, that burden has not been met.

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

Duhring v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 090346c (or.tax 4-22-2010) · filed 2010-04-22

However, while the court prefers Plaintiff's method , Plaintiff nonetheless does not prevail because, as the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff has the burden of proof. See ORS 305.427 . Plaintiff must establish his case by a "preponderance" of the evidence.

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

Halvorson v. Clackamas County Assessor, Tc-Md 090874d (or.tax 6-17-2010) · filed 2010-06-17

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

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

Bleoaja v. Department of Revenue, Tc 4930 (or.tax 7-19-2010) · filed 2010-07-19

Under ORS 305.427, taxpayers, as the parties seeking affirmative relief, bear the burden of proving the contested facts. To sustain their burden of proof, taxpayers must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Naidj v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 091268d (or.tax 9-13-2010) · filed 2010-09-13

To make its review, the court looks first at Plaintiffs' evidence in support of their challenge. "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). Plaintiffs must establish their claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Department of Revenue , TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 (1971)).

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

Ramos v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100145c (or.tax 10-12-2010) · filed 2010-10-12

Because Plaintiff is unable to prove that he provided over one-half of the support of his claimed dependents for the years at issue (2006, 2007, and 2008), Plaintiff's appeal fails under ORS 305.427 1 (requiring that the party seeking affirmative relief must provide a "preponderance of the evidence * * * to sustain the burden of proof.") Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff's appeal is denied.

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

Gutierrez v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100160d (or.tax 10-21-2010) · filed 2010-10-21

"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 (2005) (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish her claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Revenue , TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Revenue , 4 OTR 302 (1971)).

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

Gorski v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 091291b (or.tax 11-24-2010) · filed 2010-11-24

Gorski has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that he was domiciled in Texas in 2004 and Florida in 2005. ORS 305.427.

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

Rojaz v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100660b (or.tax 11-30-2010) · filed 2010-11-30

Because Plaintiff is unable to prove that he provided over one-half of the support of his claimed dependents in Mexico for the years at issue (2006, 2007, and 2008), Plaintiff's appeal fails on that portion under ORS 305.427 (2009) (requiring that the party seeking affirmative relief must provide a "preponderance of the evidence * * * to sustain the burden of proof.") Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff is allowed Head of Household status and daughter Joanna as an exemption for 2007 and 2008; and IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that no other relief is granted.

The party seeking affirmative relief in tax court must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence; an appeal without supporting evidence may be dismissed.

Betzler v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100696b (or.tax 1-31-2011) · filed 2011-01-31

"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 (2009) (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 2, WL 914208 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff has not presented any evidence in support of his appeal. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.

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

Simpson-Carroll v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 101135b (or.tax 1-31-2011) · filed 2011-01-31

"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 (2009) (emphasis added). ... Plaintiff has not presented any evidence in support of her appeal. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.

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

Hankins v. Lane Cty. As., Tc-Md 100278d (or.tax 2-3-2011) · filed 2011-02-03

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value.

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

Hankins v. Lane Cty. As., Tc-Md 100279d (or.tax 2-3-2011) · filed 2011-02-03

Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value.

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

Hankins v. Lane Cty. As., Tc-Md 100276d (or.tax 2-3-2011) · filed 2011-02-03

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value.

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

Hankins v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 100277d (or.tax 2-3-2011) · filed 2011-02-03

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value.

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

Lindo v. Washington Cty. Ass., Tc-Md 091420c (or.tax 2-9-2011) · filed 2011-02-09

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 Plaintiff. ORS 305.427.

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

Lebeck v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100404d (or.tax 2-16-2011) · filed 2011-02-16

"The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ... After careful consideration of the testimony and Defendant's evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof.

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

Col. Sportswear v. Wash. Cty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100043d (or.tax 2-16-2011) · filed 2011-02-16

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

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

Garcia v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100464d (or.tax 2-16-2011) · filed 2011-02-16

"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, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence."

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

Springwater Env. v. Clackamas County, Tc-Md 100196d (or.tax 2-17-2011) · filed 2011-02-17

To make its review, the court looks first at Plaintiff's evidence in support of its challenge. "In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief ." ORS 305.427 (2005) (emphasis added). Plaintiff must establish its claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence."

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

Schnabel v. Clatsop County Assessor, Tc-Md 100618d (or.tax 2-22-2011) · filed 2011-02-22

Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value.

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

Kelley v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100293b (or.tax 3-30-2011) · filed 2011-03-30

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value as of the date of assessment.

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

Johnson v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100310c (or.tax 3-30-2011) · filed 2011-03-30

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value as of the date of assessment.

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

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

A review of the parties' evidence is governed by statute. "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). ... Plaintiffs have not established "by a preponderance of the evidence" their requested real market value as of the date of assessment.

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

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

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427. ... With no testimony from the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report submitted by Plaintiff and no opportunity for Newkirk's challenges to be answered, the court does not find that Plaintiff's evidence was more convincing than Defendant's appraisal report, especially given Newkirk's testimony about the appraisal report he prepared.

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

Monserud v. Clatsop County Assessor, Tc-Md 100577c (or.tax 6-6-2011) · filed 2011-06-06

Plaintiffs are the party seeking affirmative relief and therefore bear the burden of proof, which in the Tax Court is a "preponderance of the evidence." ORS 305.427 .

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

Maldonado v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101340d (or.tax 6-10-2011) · filed 2011-06-10

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *." ORS 305.427 (2007). 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)).

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.

Robinson v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 091455c (or.tax 6-10-2011) · filed 2011-06-10

The burden of proof in the Tax Court is a "preponderance" of the evidence, and falls upon the party seeking affirmative relief which, in this case, is Plaintiff. ORS 305.427 .

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

Shah v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100188d (or.tax 7-7-2011) · filed 2011-07-07

ORS 305.427 provides that "[t]he burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief" and that "a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof."

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.

Palafox v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101263b (or.tax 10-25-2011) · filed 2011-10-25

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof upon the party seeking affirmative relief before the tax court and a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain 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.

Stoiber v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 101311d (or.tax 10-27-2011) · filed 2011-10-27

"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 . 2 Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev. , TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev. , 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to substantiate that he paid more than one-half the support of his four children.

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

Slaughter v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 110144c (or.tax 10-31-2011) · filed 2011-10-31

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. ORS 305.427 .

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

Stoiber v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101310d (or.tax 10-31-2011) · filed 2011-10-31

"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 . 2 Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev ., TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev ., 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to substantiate that he paid more than one-half the support of his four children. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to substantiate the claimed itemized deductions.

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

Lebeck v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 110336d (or.tax 11-9-2011) · filed 2011-11-09

"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 (2005). ... After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof.

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

Mathers v. Deschutes County Assessor, Tc-Md 110130n (or.tax 11-30-2011) · filed 2011-11-30

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 .

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on the party seeking affirmative relief and permits the court to weigh credible sworn testimony along with documents.

Nah-Dzul v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101237c (or.tax 12-1-2011) · filed 2011-12-01

Plaintiffs are seeking affirmative relief and therefore have the burden of proof. ... The court determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the sworn testimony in order to arrive at its decision.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving factual questions on the party seeking affirmative relief.

Yarbrough v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2011-12-20

As the party requesting affirma- tive relief in this proceeding, taxpayer bears the burden of proof in this proceeding on questions of fact. ORS 305.427. Phrased differently, in order to succeed in this case, taxpayer must affirmatively prove that the RMV figure of $30,000 he has given for each of the parcels at issue in this case is more likely than not the value of the property.

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

Kleen Solutions v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-01-10

In this case, it is Plaintiffs that are seeking affirmative relief in the form of a reduction in the RMV. Plaintiffs, therefore, bear the burden of proof and must establish their claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence.”

Section 305.427 places the burden of proof on each party seeking affirmative relief, including both parties when one seeks an increase in value and the other a decrease.

Lane County Assessor v. INN4 LLC · filed 2012-01-24

In this case, both parties are seeking affirmative relief; the county is requesting an increase in RMV and the taxpayer a further decrease.

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

Lane County Assessor v. Fire and Water LLC · filed 2012-01-24

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 the County.

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

Simmons v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-01-31

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

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

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

After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof.

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

Global Distributor & Wholesaler v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-03-13

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

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.

Ivanov v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-03-28

For a dispute in 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 burden in this case falls, at least initially, on Plaintiffs, as they are the party seeking affirmative relief.

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

Hideaway Holdings v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2012-03-28

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 its determination of the RMV.

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

Gorski v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2012-05-23

Taxpayer is therefore the “party seeking affirmative relief,” and bears the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance of the evi- dence. ORS 305.427.

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

Haifley v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2012-05-30

In this case, Plaintiffs are seeking relief and thus bear the burden of proof.

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

Richards v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-07-09

When, as in this case, the dispute moves to 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.

Hughes v. Multnomah County Assessor · filed 2012-07-10

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs have the burden of proof to establish that they qualify for forestland special assessment.

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

Hansen v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-07-24

Given the statutory burden of proof requirements in ORS 305.427 and the general recordkeeping requirements of IRC section 6001, the court will not allow any amount for advertising.

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

Cascade Funding Group, LLC v. Deschutes County Assessor · filed 2012-07-26

Plaintiff, as the party seeking affirmative relief, has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

Raab v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-07-31

When the dispute moves to 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 on a party seeking affirmative relief to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the tax roll value is wrong.

Ivanovic v. Clackamas County Assessor · filed 2012-07-31

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.

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

Erbling v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-08-08

When, as in this case, the dispute moves to 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.

Ackley v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-08-30

As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the subject vehicle was a personal use vehicle. 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.

Phillips v. Lane County Assessor · filed 2012-09-04

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof, and ―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. As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiffs must persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant erred in disqualifying the subject property from the designated forestland special assessment, and if the disqualification is upheld by this court, that the imposition of the additional back taxes was improper.

A party seeking affirmative relief bears the burden of proof and initially must go forward with the evidence.

Capital Development Company v. Marion County Assessor · filed 2012-09-11

The party seeking affirmative relief has the burden of proof and, initially, the burden of going forward with the evidence. ORS 305.427.

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.

Frazier v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-09-12

ORS 305.427 places the burden of proof upon the party seeking affirmative relief before the tax court, and a preponderance of the evidence is required to sustain the burden of proof.

Section 305.427 places the burden of proving disputed facts on the party requesting affirmative relief in a tax appeal.

Yarbrough v. Dept. of Rev. · filed 2012-09-18

As the party requesting affirmative relief in this proceeding, taxpayer bears the burden of proof in this proceeding on questions of fact. ORS 305.427.

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

Whitmore v. Douglas County Assessor · filed 2012-09-26

In this case, Plaintiffs are seeking relief and thus bear the burden of proof.