Burden of proof in tax court proceedings
Source:
Section 305.427 — Burden of proof in tax court proceedings, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors305.html.
Notes of Decisions
Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed does not relate to the correctness of the value ascribed to property by the assessor. J.R. Widmer, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 261 Or 371, 494 P2d 854 (1972)
Once taxpayer has introduced substantial evidence showing a value of property different than that asserted by the assessor, the burden of going forward shifts. Publishers Paper Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 270 Or 737, 530 P2d 88 (1974)
Where the Department of Revenue presents no testimony of evidential value as to true cash value and the plaintiff presents some testimony which carries weight with the court, then the plaintiff has met the burden of proof required by this section. Astoria Plywood Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 40 (1975)
Tax Court’s duty is to determine value based upon preponderance of evidence before it, and it is not confined to values pled by parties. Bylund v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 532 (1978)
Role of Supreme Court as “fact finder” is to try case “anew upon the record”, so Supreme Court should not go outside record for evidence on definition of terminology or on methods of appraisal. Oregon Broadcasting Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 287 Or 267, 598 P2d 689 (1979)
Appraisal based on sales of “comparable” properties failed to meet preponderance of evidence rule where residence had been on market at price lower than assessed valuation for several years and had never sold. Martin v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 141 (1979)
On appeal from Revenue Department’s valuation of newly constructed banking facility, where there was unrefuted testimony that property had one of highest traffic count locations in city and that major new branch bank was established farther out on same street, taxpayer did not sustain burden of proving “economic obsolescence” to reduce valuation. The Oregon Bank v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 291 (1980)
Where plaintiffs were uncertain as to date and contents of letter of protest they claim to have sent to defendant and introduced no evidence of settlement with Internal Revenue Service and were unable to explain at what level or on what basis it was resolved and defendant had three witnesses that testified no letter of protest or appeal was received, defendant’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal from audit of 1981 income tax return was sustained. Martin v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 162 (1989)
In determining whether to exercise discretion in order to protect confidential information under this section, court must: 1) determine whether information is confidential; 2) determine whether disclosure will cause actual harm; and 3) weigh possible harm against benefit to public resulting from disclosure. Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 448 (1990)
Canceled check that is labeled and not inconsistent with other evidence is best evidence of deductible expense. Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 798 P2d 235 (1990)
Where claim for additional taxes was first raised in department’s amended answer to taxpayer’s appeal, burden of proof regarding new claim was on taxpayer. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 521 (1993)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: J.R. Widmer, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 361 (1971), aff’d 261 Or 371, 494 P2d 854 (1972)
Law Review Citations
48 WLR 147 (2011)
Up to date