Oregon Administrative Rules › Chapter 150 - DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE › Division 311 - COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TAXES › Section 150-311-0150 - Error Corrections and Valuation Judgment Under 311.205

Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 7, July 1, 2024
(1) Except as
			 provided in ORS 311.205(1)(b),
			 and section (3) of this rule, the officer may not correct an error or omission
			 on the roll of value of land; improvement; personal or other property; or of
			 any part, parcel or portion of land, improvement, personal or other property,
			 if the correction requires that the officer exercise judgment to determine the
			 value, formulate an opinion as to value, or inquire into the state of mind of
			 the appraiser. Mistakes of this nature may be:
(a) Thinking that a house has a basement when
			 it does not;
(b) Making a
			 mathematical error when computing the square footage, the acreage, or some
			 other factor; or
(c) Errors made
			 in calculating a real market value. For example, in appraising bare land, the
			 appraiser may simply multiply the number of acres by the per acre value for
			 that class of land. The appraiser may also then make adjustments to that result
			 for size, shape, configuration, or other factors which affect the value of bare
			 land. If the appraiser makes a mistake in any of these computations or
			 assumptions of fact, these are mistakes that have entered into the appraiser's
			 determination of judgment and are not subject to correction.
Example 1: Taxpayer owned some 33.07 acres of
			 land. The assessor mistakenly carried the property on the roll as 37.63 acres.
			 The assessor arrived at a value per acre for each classification and then
			 multiplied the per acre value times the number of acres in the tract. Although
			 the assessor used unit values in arriving at a total assessment, the assessor
			 may also have made some adjustments in the final figure for special features or
			 qualities peculiar to the property. The figures may be wrong but the assessor's
			 judgment of the parcel's value may be right. Because it is the total assessment
			 that is subject to question, and because more elements than simply the matter
			 of acreage can be used to arrive at a total assessment, this is a case of value
			 judgment and is not correctable.
Example
			 2: A taxpayer sold two acres of his 8.33 acre parcel. Upon notice
			 of that sale, the assessor's office started the administrative process of
			 setting up a new account and revising the value of the old account. The new
			 account cards for the two-acre parcel were set up and the value put on the
			 roll. However, in the administrative process, no change in the acreage and
			 value was made on the old appraisal envelopes and cards for the remaining 6.33
			 acres. Consequently, the remaining 6.33 acres were placed upon the roll at the
			 same values used prior to the sale. There are two errors to consider here. One
			 is the fact that the assessor placed the original 8.33 acreage on the roll at
			 the same value used prior to the sale. This is an error in valuation judgment,
			 not a clerical error. Although this may appear to be a mathematical error due
			 to the failure of one of the clerks, it could just as well be the assessor
			 mistaken in fact and judgment. The situation is similar to that of an assessor
			 mistaken as to the number of acres or the number of square feet in a given
			 property. The figures may be wrong but the assessor's judgment of the parcel's
			 value may be right. Simply "subtracting" the prorated value of the two-acre
			 parcel from the value of the 8.33 acre parcel does not necessarily result in
			 the real market value for the 6.33 acre parcel. The appraiser must also look to
			 the highest and best use, lay of the land, and other considerations that would
			 affect value. In these circumstances, the statutory scheme requires that the
			 taxpayer be sufficiently cognizant of his property values to object and appeal
			 if necessary. Since both the appraisal cards and the assessment roll were not
			 changed, it must be presumed that the assessor intended those values to be
			 used, subject to appeal. The second error is the failure of the assessor to
			 reduce the acreage on the original parcel from 8.33 to 6.33 acres. This is a
			 clerical error because the correct facts are evident from the assessor records
			 and there is no speculation or conjecture as to value.
Example 3: A parcel of land has been carried
			 on the roll for several years as five acres. The parcel sells and the buyer
			 requires a survey. The surveyor arrives at a measurement of 4.72 acres. This is
			 an error in valuation judgment and is not correctable under ORS
			 311.205(1)(a)
			 as a clerical error or under 311.205(1)(c) as an error or omission on the roll
			 of any kind. Because it is the total assessment that is subject to question,
			 and because more elements than simply the matter of acreage can be used to
			 arrive at a total assessment, this is a case of value judgment and is not
			 correctable. The assessor may correct the acreage on the next assessment and
			 tax roll and reappraise the parcel for value, if necessary.