2015 ORS 305.427¹
Burden of proof in tax court proceedings

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 and the burden of going forward with the evidence shall shift as in other civil litigation. [1965 c.6 §5; 1995 c.650 §20]

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)

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.