Court Opinion

ID: 9613804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:20:05.439755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.975528
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
Pro Tempore, dissenting.
Contrary to the majority, I am of the firm opinion that the 'cost of construction approach’ is the only proper method for fixing the true cash value of this newly constructed medical office building. After weighing the arguments of both sides, I am compelled *81to agree with the Department of Revenue’s argument that the 'cost of construction’ is the only accurate and practical measure of the valuation at this time, given the fact that this building has just been constructed and was only partially occupied by tenants. Both the 'income approach’ and the 'comparable sales approach’ are plainly speculative here.
The so-called 'income approach,’ which is the method urged by the building owners and accepted by the Oregon Tax Court, in my view is not proper under the facts presented here. I say this mainly because there is at present no earnings history of this building to go on. The 'earnings history’ apparently relied upon by the Oregon Tax Court was subsequent to the assessment date, January 1, 1975, and therefore was probably not admissible evidence.
After the plaintiffs’ building has an earnings history of at least a year, it would then be appropriate to reexamine the issue of valuation, and in doing so to consider the 'income approach,’ but not until then, and certainly not to the exclusion of all other factors. See, Shields v. Dept. of Rev., 266 Or 461, 513 P2d 784 (1973).
For the above reasons I respectfully dissent.