2017 ORS 308.590¹
Review and correction of tentative assessment roll
  • apportionment to county

(1) The Director of the Department of Revenue shall:

(a) Review, examine and correct the tentative assessment roll prepared under ORS 308.585 (Delivery of tentative assessment roll to director).

(b) Increase or reduce the valuation of property assessed on the roll so that the valuation is the assessed value of the property.

(c) Correct errors in apportionments of assessments on the roll.

(d) Correct errors in the ratio of average maximum assessed value to average real market value calculated under ORS 308.153 (New property and new improvements to property).

(2) If it appears to the director that there is any real or personal property that, by law, the department is permitted to assess that has been assessed by the department more than one time, or incorrectly assessed as to description, quantity or quality, or assessed in the name of a person or company not the owner, lessee or occupant of the property, or assessed under or beyond the actual assessed value of the property, the director may make proper corrections to the roll.

(3) If it appears to the director that there is real or personal property that has been assessed by the department but that is not assessable by the department, the director may make proper corrections to the roll.

(4) If it appears to the director that any real or personal property that is assessable by the department has not been assessed upon the roll, the director shall assess the property at its assessed value.

(5) Property assessed by the department within any county shall be apportioned by the department to the county. [Amended by 1959 c.519 §2; 1967 c.293 §10; 1969 c.520 §31; 1971 c.377 §1; 1973 c.402 §10; 1991 c.459 §153; 1997 c.541 §210; 2003 c.31 §1; 2003 c.46 §21; 2007 c.616 §5]

Notes of Decisions

Time require­ments and budget limita­tions have caused Oregon counties, with legislative sanc­tion of this sec­tion, to make use of trending and indexing to keep prop­erty values reasonably current. Price v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 18 (1977)

Under pre-2003 version of statute, Depart­ment of Revenue may not add centrally assessed omitted prop­erty assess­ments for prior years to current year roll. P.U.D. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Dept. of Revenue, 17 OTR 290 (2004)

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 (1981)

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/­ors/­ors308.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 308, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano308.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.