Ochsner v. Department of Revenue ( 2013 )

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
A. JOHN OCHSNER IV, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 130118N
)
v. )
)
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )
State of Oregon, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Motion), filed May 15,
2013. Plaintiff (Ochsner) filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and a motion for
summary judgment. (Ptf’s Resp at 1, May 28, 2013.)
Ochsner filed his Complaint March 22, 2013.1 With his Complaint, Ochsner attached
Defendant’s Conference Decision, dated December 21, 2012, which dismissed Ochsner’s claim
for relief under ORS 307.475 based on Defendant’s conclusion that it “lack[ed] jurisdiction to
grant [Ochsner’s] request.” (Ptf’s Compl at 2-3.) Although Defendant’s Conference Decision
involved the 2007-08 through 2010-11 tax years, Ochsner appeals the “2007-2013” tax years.
(Id. at 1, 2.) Ochsner states his requested relief as: “Grant property tax exemption to CatLand
for tax years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and
forward.” (Id. at 1.) The property at issue is identified as Account 480483 (subject property).
(Id.)
Defendant initially requested dismissal of Ochsner’s appeal because it was not timely
filed, but subsequently withdrew “its argument regarding the timeliness of [Ochsner’s] appeal[.]”
1
ORS 305.418(1) states, in part, that a complaint is deemed filed “on the date shown by the post-office
cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing it * * *.”
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 1
(Def’s Mot at 1; Def’s Reply at 2, June 14, 2013.) Defendant makes two arguments in support of
its Motion. (Def’s Mot at 1.) First, Defendant requests dismissal of Ochsner’s Complaint under
Tax Court Rule (TCR) 21 A(1) because “the appeals in TC-MD 100353B (TC 5009) and
TC-MD 111066C (TC 5155), which involved property tax years 2004-05 through 2010-11 and
property tax years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively, have already received final adjudicat[ion]
by the Oregon Tax Court, and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear those appeals again.” (Def’s
Mot at 1.) Second, Defendant requests dismissal of Ochsner’s appeal pursuant to TCR 21 A(8),
“for failure to state a legally cognizable claim for relief * * *.” (Id.) Defendant requests that the
court award “frivolous appeal penalties in the amount of $2,500 and its reasonable attorney fees
incurred in defending this action[.]” (Id. at 2.)
A. History of appeals involving the subject property
Catland or Ochsner have filed several prior appeals with this court requesting that the
subject property receive property tax exemption under ORS 307.130. On February 24, 2011, the
Magistrate Division issued a decision in Catland v. Yamhill County Assessor (Catland), TC-MD
100353B (Feb 24, 2011). Catland requested property tax exemption for the subject property for
the 2004-05 through 2010-11 tax years. Catland, TC-MD No 100535B at 1. The court
dismissed Plaintiff’s appeals for the 2004-05 through 2009-10 tax years finding that, “[b]ecause
[Catland] did not exist as a corporation until 2010, it may not apply for exemptions for any prior
tax years.” Id. at 6. With respect to the 2010-11 tax year, the court found that Catland did not
qualify as a charitable organization or as a scientific institution under ORS 307.130. Id. at 10,
12. As a result, the court denied Catland’s appeal. Id. at 13.
Catland appealed TC-MD 100353B to the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court and
identified the tax years appealed as “all tax years beginning in 2010.” (Compl at 1, TC No 5009,
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 2
Apr 22, 2011.) Catland subsequently withdrew its Regular Division appeal of the decision in
TC-MD 100353B. (J of Dismissal, TC No 5009, June 15, 2011.)
On October 30, 2012, the Magistrate Division issued a decision in Catland v. Yamhill
County Assessor (Catland II), TC-MD 111066C (Oct 30, 2012). Catland requested property tax
exemption for the subject property for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 tax years. Catland II, TC-MD
No 111066C at 1. By Order issued February 22, 2012, the court dismissed Catland’s appeal for
the 2010-11 tax year. The court found that Catland was “barred from relitigating [the] matter”
under “the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.” (Order at 2, TC-MD No 111066C, Feb 22,
2012.) The court held a trial to consider the merits of Catland’s appeal for the 2011-12 tax year.
See Catland II, TC-MD No 111066C at 1. The court denied Catland’s appeal for the 2011-12
tax year, concluding that Catland “failed to prove that it was involved in a qualifying charitable
activity as of the assessment date or that the subject property was used primarily for a charitable
purpose.” Id. at 11.
Ochsner filed a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court challenging
the decision of the Magistrate Division in TC-MD No 111066C. See Ochsner v. Dept. of Rev.,
TC No 5155 (Order Granting Dismissal, Mar 5, 2013). The defendant, Department of Revenue,
moved for dismissal of Ochsner’s appeal, arguing that he had “no right to appeal a decision of a
magistrate in a proceeding in which he was not a party.” Id. at 1. The Regular Division granted
the defendant’s motion to dismiss, stating:
“If Catland was obligated to pay the tax imposed on the property, it was the
proper party plaintiff in the Magistrate Division and, as such was the party to take
any appeal from a decision of the magistrate under ORS 305.501(5)(a) and would
have standing to appeal under ORS 305.570(1)(b). In those circumstances,
[Ochsner] would have no statutory right of appeal.
“Alternatively, if Catland was not obligated to pay tax imposed on the property,
* * * it would have had no statutory right of appeal under ORS 305.275 or any
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 3
other statute. In that event, the Magistrate Division was without jurisdiction and
the decision of the magistrate was void and there was nothing from which an
appeal to the Regular Division could be taken. * * * * * [I]n all events [Ochsner]
in this matter has no basis on which to proceed.”
Id. at 2.
B. Ochsner’s requested relief
In his Complaint, Ochsner stated his requested relief as: “Grant property tax exemption
to CatLand for tax years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013
and forward.” (Ptf’s Compl at 1.) Similarly, in his response to Defendant’s Motion, Ochsner
stated that he “requests property tax exemption for CatLand, a charitable corporation.”
(Ptf’s Resp at 2, May 28, 2013.) Ochsner alleges that he received misinformation from
Defendant and the Yamhill County Assessor’s office that caused him to fail to incorporate
CatLand in 2004. (Id. at 1.) He asserts that CatLand “should have been receiving property tax
exemption since the 2004-05 tax year.” (Id. at 2.) Ochsner also challenges findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the previous Magistrate Division decisions.2 (See id.; see also Ptf’s Resp
at 1, June 27, 2013.)
C. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendant asserts that Ochsner’s Complaint “fails to allege sufficient facts to state a
legally cognizable claim for relief and should be dismissed.” (Def’s Mot at 5.) Specifically,
Defendant argues that “only property of a charitable corporation may be eligible for the tax
exemption under ORS 307.130, and [Ochsner] is not a corporation.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in
2
Ochsner states: “The magistrate division decided in both cases TC-MD 100353B [p. 10] and TC-MD
111066C [p. 10], based upon the assessors’ preposterous yet convenient assertions, that all of the rescued animals of
CatLand are my personal pets and therefore the property is strictly residential. CatLand’s residents are not my ‘pets’
as the ordinary meaning of the word implies.” (Ptf’s Resp at 2, May 28, 2013 (emphasis in original).) “We supplied
evidence of all of these charitable activities [of Catland] in TC-MD 111066C, including the fact that the residents of
CatLand are not my personal pets, yet were still somehow denied. CatLand simply needs to supply additional
evidence to create a preponderance, and for the court to accept said evidence.” (Ptf’s Resp at 1, June 27, 2013
(emphasis in original).)
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 4
original).) The court agrees with Defendant. “Upon compliance with ORS 307.162,”
ORS 307.130(2) allows a property tax exemption for certain property “owned or being purchased
by art museums, volunteer fire departments, or incorporated literary, benevolent, charitable and
scientific institutions * * *.”3 (Emphasis added.) Ochsner is the only named plaintiff in this
matter and he is not an incorporated institution, as required by ORS 307.130.
In his Complaint and subsequent written responses, Ochsner states that he seeks a
property tax exemption based on the activities of Catland. Ochsner is the only named plaintiff in
this matter; Catland is not a party. Even if Catland were a named plaintiff in this matter, the
court may lack jurisdiction to consider Catland’s claim. As noted by the Regular Division in its
Judgment of Dismissal in TC No 5155, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim by
Catland for property tax exemption if Catland was not obligated to pay the property tax imposed
on the subject property for the tax years at issue. The court has received no evidence to confirm
whether Ochsner or Catland was obligated to pay the property tax imposed on the subject
property.
If Catland was obligated to pay the property tax imposed on the subject property for the
tax years at issue, its request for property tax exemption for the subject property would be barred
under the doctrine of claim preclusion for the 2007-08 through 2011-12 tax years. “Claim
preclusion occurs when an action is barred because the plaintiff has already litigated the same
claim against the same defendant.” Safley v. Jackson County Assessor and Dept. of Rev.
(Safley), TC-MD No 091206C at *5, WL 4923355 (Dec 2, 2010) (citations omitted). As
discussed above, Catland filed appeals with this court for the 2004-05 through 2011-12 tax years,
seeking property tax exemption for the subject property. The Magistrate Division issued
3
Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 5
decisions in each of Catland’s appeals and Catland separately appealed each decision to the
Regular Division of this court. The Regular Division issued judgments of dismissal in each
appeal and no further appeals were taken to the Oregon Supreme Court. “If no appeal is taken to
the Supreme Court, the decision of the court shall constitute a final determination of the matter.”
ORS 305.440(1). Thus, Catland received final adjudications of its requests for property tax
exemption for the subject property for the 2007-08 through 2011-12 tax years.4
To the extent that Ocshner seeks to maintain claims on behalf of Catland for the 2012-13
and 2013-14 tax years, those claims are not properly before this court. As Defendant notes,
Ochsner did not include an “assessment notice or tax billing for tax year 2012-13 with his
complaint[,]” nor did he include an order or determination denying an application for property
tax exemption for the subject property for the 2012-13 tax year. (See Def’s Mot at 8.)
Defendant argues that, if Ochsner’s appeal for the 2012-13 tax year is an appeal from the
2012-13 property tax statement, Ochsner’s appeal was not timely filed “within 90 days after the
act, omission, order or determination [became] actually known” to Ochsner, under ORS
305.280(1). (See id.) Under ORS 311.250(1), property tax statements must be delivered or
mailed “on or before October 25 in each year[.]” The court received no evidence of the date that
Ochsner received the 2012-13 property tax notice for the subject property. If Ochsner received
the 2012-13 property tax notice at the end of October 2012, then this appeal must have been filed
no later than the end of January 2013. Ochsner’s appeal was filed March 22, 2013.
Ochsner argues that his 2012-13 tax year appeal is timely because he “appealed the case
at bar shortly after the decision from TC 5155 (appealed from TC-MD 111066C) was issued, or
in other words within 90 days after the ‘determination [became] actually known’ to [him]. There
4
That conclusion is consistent with the Order issued by the Magistrate Division in Catland II, dismissing
Catland’s appeal for the 2010-11 tax year based on the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 6
was clearly no reason for [Ochsner] to initiate another complaint with this court while there was
a case currently pending trial, especially since said case should have certainly prevailed based on
the preponderance of the evidence presented.” (Ptf’s Resp at 2, June 27, 2013.) “It has long
been held in Oregon tax cases that each tax year stands alone; thus, each tax year is its own cause
of action.” Safley, WL 4923355 at *5 (Dec 2, 2010), citing U.S. Bancorp v. Dept. of Rev., 15
OTR 13, 15 (1999). The Regular Division appeal, TC No 5155, involved the 2010-11 and
2011-12 tax years, not the 2012-13 tax year. The Judgment of Dismissal issued by the Regular
Division in TC No 5155 for the 2011-12 tax year did not create a new right of appeal with the
Magistrate Division for the 2012-13 tax year.5
The court lacks jurisdiction under ORS 305.275(1)(a) to consider Ochsner’s appeal for
the 2013-14 tax year. Under ORS 305.275(1)(a), a “person must be aggrieved by and affected
by an act, omission, order or determination of” Defendant in order to appeal to the Magistrate
Division. As noted by Defendant, property tax statements for the 2013-14 tax year had not been
mailed as of the date Ochsner’s Complaint was filed.6 (See Def’s Mot at 9.) Ochsner did not
attach an order or determination for the 2013-14 tax year from which he appeals. The court is
///
5
ORS 305.285 states, in part:
“Whenever any property tax matter is appealed to the Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court
or Supreme Court, and during the pendency of the appeal, no appeal is filed for a subsequent year
or years, the taxpayer may, on or before December 15 of the year in which a final determination is
made by the last body or tribunal to pass on the matter or within six months of such final
determination, whichever is later, request the department to order the officer in charge of the rolls
for the intervening years to correct all tax and assessment rolls for those years with respect to the
property affected by such final determination.”
(Emphasis added.) Thus, a final determination by this court may provide the taxpayer with a right to request that the
Department of Revenue order a correction to the tax and assessment rolls. The court is not aware of a statute
authorizing the taxpayer to make such a request of the court. Moreover, Catland’s requests for property tax
exemption for the subject property were denied or dismissed for the 2004-05 through 2011-12 tax years; thus, there
is no basis to correct the tax and assessment rolls for the 2012-13 tax year.
6
In fact, 2013-14 property tax statements have not been mailed as of the date of this Decision.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 7
not aware of any other “act, omission, order or determination” for the 2013-14 tax year that
could form the basis of Ochsner’s appeal.
D. Defendant’s request for frivolous appeal penalty and attorney fees
Defendant requests that the court award it a frivolous appeal penalty in the amount of
$2,500 pursuant to ORS 305.437(1) and “its attorney fees incurred in defending this frivolous
and groundless suit” pursuant to ORS 20.105(1).7 (Def’s Mot at 10-12.)
ORS 305.437 states, in part:
“(1) Whenever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings before it have
been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or that the
taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, a penalty in an
amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be awarded to the Department of Revenue by
the Oregon Tax Court in its judgment. * * *.
“(2) As used in this section:
“(a) A taxpayer’s position is ‘frivolous’ if there was no objectively
reasonable basis for asserting the position.”
To determine whether the basis for the claim was objectively reasonable, the court
“assesses whether taxpayer’s claims, defenses, or grounds for appeal were ‘entirely devoid of
legal or factual support at the time [they] were made.’ ” Christenson v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR
269, 274 (2005) (citation omitted). This court has, for example, determined that the argument
that wages are not taxable income is frivolous. See, e.g., Negrete v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 134,
137-38 (2006) (citation omitted) (“[t]he argument that wages are not taxable income * * * has
7
ORS 20.105(1) states:
“In any civil action, suit or other proceeding in a circuit court or the Oregon Tax Court, or in any
civil appeal to or review by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the court shall award
reasonable attorney fees to a party against whom a claim, defense or ground for appeal or review
is asserted, if that party is a prevailing party in the proceeding and to be paid by the party asserting
the claim, defense or ground, upon a finding by the court that * * * there was no objectively
reasonable basis for asserting the claim, defense or ground for appeal.”
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 8
been repeatedly ruled frivolous by this court and the Oregon Supreme Court, as well as the
United States Supreme Court[]”).)
Ochsner’s claim that the subject property is entitled to property tax exemption is not, by
itself, a frivolous claim. Under ORS 307.130, qualifying property owned or leased by
incorporated, charitable institutions is entitled to property tax exemption.8 Defendant argues that
Ochsner’s claim that the subject property is entitled to property tax exemption is frivolous
because it is a claim that has been previously denied by this court with respect to several of the
tax years at issue in this appeal. The court agrees with Defendant that, when a taxpayer
continues to assert a claim that was previously denied by this court, it may transform a claim that
is not otherwise frivolous into a frivolous claim.
Ochsner’s claim is this appeal is identical to the claims in Catland and Catland II, with
the exception that Ochsner, rather than Catland, is the only named plaintiff in this case. For the
reasons discussed above, naming Ochsner rather than Catland as the plaintiff in this appeal does
not change the outcome of Ochsner’s claim that the subject property should receive property tax
exemption under ORS 307.130. However, the court is not persuaded that a frivolous appeal
penalty under ORS 305.437 is supported in this case. Ochsner’s appeal is dismissed, in part,
because Ochsner is not an incorporated institution, as required by ORS 307.130 and, in part,
because the claim that the subject property is exempt based on Catland’s activities has been
previously decided by this court for most of the tax years appealed. Although the claim that
Ochsner, as an individual, is entitled to property tax exemption under ORS 307.130 is not well
taken, it is not a claim that was addressed in Catland or Catland II. The court concludes that
8
ORS 307.112(1) allows a property tax exemption for certain “[r]eal or personal property of a taxable
owner held under lease, sublease or lease-purchase agreement by an institution, organization or public body, other
than the State of Oregon, granted exemption or the right to claim exemption for any of its property under ORS * * *
307.130 * * *.”
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 9
Ochsner’s appeal is not frivolous under ORS 305.437. Defendant’s requests for a frivolous
appeal penalty under ORS 305.437(1) and its attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) are denied.
E. Conclusion
After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
should be granted. Ochsner is not an incorporated institution and cannot, therefore, receive
property tax exemption for the subject property under ORS 307.130. To the extent Ochsner
seeks property tax exemption for the subject property based on the activities of Catland, that
claim was previously decided by this court for the 2007-08 through 2011-12 tax years and cannot
be raised again in this appeal. Ochsner’s appeal for the 2012-13 tax year was not timely filed.
Ochsner’s appeal for the 2013-14 tax year is not allowed under ORS 305.275(1)(a) because
Ochsner is not aggrieved. Although Ochsner’s claims in this appeal are not well taken, the court
concludes that Ochsner’s appeal is not frivolous. Defendant’s requests for a penalty under
ORS 305.437 and attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) are denied. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that this matter be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant’s requests for a penalty under ORS 305.437
and attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) are denied
Dated this day of July 2013.
ALLISON R. BOOMER
MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 10
This Decision was signed by Magistrate Allison R. Boomer on July 12, 2013.
The court filed and entered this Decision on July 12, 2013.
DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 130118N 11