2015 ORS 305.425¹
Proceedings to be without jury and de novo
  • issues reviewable
  • rules of procedure

(1) All proceedings before the judge of the tax court shall be original, independent proceedings and shall be tried without a jury and de novo.

(2) If a statute provides for an appeal to or a review by the court of an order, act, omission or determination of the Department of Revenue, a board of property tax appeals or of any other administrative agency, the proceeding shall be an original proceeding in the nature of a suit in equity to set aside such order or determination or correct the act or omission. The time within which the statute provides that the proceeding shall be brought is a period of limitations and is not jurisdictional.

(3) All hearings and proceedings before the tax court judge shall be in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure promulgated by the court, which shall conform, as far as practical to the rules of equity practice and procedure in this state. [1961 c.533 §16; 1965 c.6 §3; 1967 c.78 §9; 1973 c.484 §7; 1977 c.870 §29; 1981 s.s. c.1 §23; 1995 c.650 §19; 1997 c.541 §60]

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)

It was permissible for county assessor's appraisers to revise their presenta­tion of value before the tax court following their experiences in the Board of Equaliza­tion and Depart­ment of Revenue hearing, under pro­vi­sion of this sec­tion that all pro­ceed­ings before tax court shall be original, independent pro­ceed­ings tried de novo. Price v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 18 (1977)

Where an issue is not considered at the hearing before the board of equaliza­tion, but is raised at the Depart­ment of Revenue hearing, the issue is properly considered by the Tax Court. Oregon Broadcasting Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 287 Or 267, 598 P2d 689 (1979)

Writ of review is available before Oregon Tax Court. Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine, 289 Or 909, 618 P2d 960 (1980)

Under this sec­tion, Oregon Tax Court con­ducting "original, independent...and de novo" pro­ceed­ings in prop­erty evalua­tion is not restricted to values pre­vi­ously alleged by parties on ap­peal to Depart­ment of Revenue. Mid Oil Company v. Dept. of Revenue, 297 Or 583, 686 P2d 1020 (1984)

When Tax Court admits new evidence, it must evaluate that evidence and reach its own conclusions. Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 798 P2d 235 (1990)

On de novo review, Supreme Court reaches decision without regard to either party's prelitiga­tion posi­tion. Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 798 P2d 235 (1990)

Whether earlier administrative determina­tion in tax case should be given preclusive effect for sub­se­quent years depends on formality of determina­tion and other listed factors. Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 321 Or 341, 898 P2d 1333 (1995)

Where taxpayer challenges prop­erty assess­ment, de novo nature of pro­ceed­ing permits assessor to introduce evidence es­tab­lishing market value higher than ap­pealed valua­tion and to obtain increased assess­ment. Clark v. Dept. of Revenue, 14 OTR 221 (1997)

Scope of review by regular division of tax court extends to procedural issues raised by decisions of magistrate division. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 15 OTR 331 (2001)

Require­ment for de novo review prevents reliance on record created in magistrate division absent con­sent of parties. Dept. of Revenue v. Guardian Manage­ment Corp., 16 OTR 17 (2002)

Require­ment that judicial review be de novo does not apply to review of Depart­ment of Revenue decision under ORS 306.115 (General supervision over property tax system). ADC Kentrox v. Dept. of Revenue, 19 OTR 91 (2006)

Where tax court magistrate division dismisses ac­tion on procedural grounds, de novo review by regular division is limited to determining whether magistrate abused discre­tion. Freitag v. Dept. of Revenue, 19 OTR 144 (2006)

Chapter 305

Notes of Decisions

Policy of efficient and effective tax collec­tion makes doctrine of estoppel against govern­ment in tax cases one of rare applica­tion. Pacific Conference v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 429 (1978)

Law Review Cita­tions

9 WLJ 193-260 (1973); 48 WLR 147 (2011)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 305—Administration of Revenue and Tax Laws; Appeals, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors305.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 305, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano305.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.