ORS 308.595¹
Notice when valuation increased or omitted property placed on tentative assessment roll
  • • notice

The Director of the Department of Revenue, while reviewing and apportioning the tentative assessment roll, may not increase the valuation of any property on the roll without giving to the company or person in whose name the property is assessed at least six days’ written notice to appear and show cause, if any, why the valuation of the assessable property of the company or person, or some part thereof, to be specified in the notice, should not be increased. A notice is not necessary if the person or company appears voluntarily before the director and is notified by the director that the property of the person or company, or some specified part thereof is, in the opinion of the director, assessed below its assessed value. [Amended by 1955 c.735 §3; 1957 c.325 §2; 1967 c.78 §4; 1969 c.520 §32; 1977 c.870 §35; 1991 c.459 §154; 1993 c.270 §35; 1995 c.650 §91; 1997 c.541 §212; 1999 c.223 §5; 2007 c.616 §6]

§§ 308.505 (Definitions for ORS 308.505 to 308.665) to 308.665 (Railroad car exemption)

Notes of Decisions

The wa­ter system in a planned unit develop­ment was properly assessed by the Depart­ment of Revenue as having value for which taxes should have been assessed. Brooks Resources v. Dept. of Rev., 276 Or 1177, 538 P2d 312 (1976)

In valuing a railroad, the weight to be given each approach customarily used (cost, stock and debt, and income) and the varia­tion among appraisers in the minutiae of their methods, if in dispute, are left to the court to consider. Burlington Northern v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 19 (1979), as modified by 291 Or 729, 635 P2d 347

Land infested with tansy ragwort and therefore not used to obtain a profit was properly disqualified for special assess­ment at true cash value for farm use. Shepherd v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 122 (1979)

While it is allowable to use only one approach in valuing prop­erty, whether in any given assess­ment one approach should be used exclusive of the others or is preferable to an­oth­er or to combina­tion of approaches is ques­tion of fact to be determined by the court. Pacific Power and Light Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 529, 596 P2d 912 (1979)

Central assess­ment statutes create excep­tion to public prop­erty tax exemp­tion out­lined in ORS 307.090 (Property of the state, counties and other municipal corporations). Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Revenue, 340 Or 204, 131 P3d 725 (2006)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 714 (1990)

Chapter 308

Notes of Decisions

Programs administered by Depart­ment of Revenue that allow preferential assess­ment for farm and forestland are not "programs affecting land use" and are not subject to require­ment of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities). Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Applica­tion of Article XI, sec­tion 11b of Oregon Constitu­tion to this chapter, (1990) Vol 46, p 388

Law Review Cita­tions

5 EL 516 (1975)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 308—Assessment of Property for Taxation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors308.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 308, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­308ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information