Roeder Holdings LLC v. Dept. of Rev. ( 2013 )

No. 25 April 25, 2013 183
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
ROEDER HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Defendant,
and
DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant-Intervenor.
(TC 5018)
Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed a Magistrate Division decision as to the value
of real property in Deschutes County. Taxpayer argued that the valuation of the
lots in its subdivision should be determined using a wholesale or bulk discount
method, and that debris and rock was present on 29 of the lots as of the assess-
ment date and that any valuation of the lots should take into account the cost
of removing the debris. Following trial the court found that taxpayer had not
carried his burden of proof due to the fact that taxpayer’s appraisal evidence
included several defects in its use of comparable sales, specifically, an absence
of any paired-sales or other analysis that supported the opinion of taxpayer, and
that the county’s valuation of the lots was essentially correct.
Trial was held February 10 and 14, 2012, in the court-
room of the Oregon Tax Court, Salem.
Mark G. Reinecke, Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis PC, Bend,
argued the cause for Plaintiff (taxpayer).
James C. Wallace, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Salem, argued the cause for Defen-
dant Department of Revenue (the department).
Laurie E. Craghead, Deschutes County Counsel, Bend,
argued the cause for Defendant-Intervenor Deschutes County
Assessor (the county).
Decision for Defendants rendered April 25, 2013.
HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.
184 Roeder Holdings LLC v. Dept. of Rev.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court following trial. The
issue is the real market value of lots in a subdivision in
Bend, Oregon. The tax year is 2009-10 and the assessment
date is January 1, 2009. The trial in this matter was held in
conjunction with Roeder v. Dept. of Rev., 21 OTR 178 (2013)
(Roeder I) and the parties agreed that evidence in either
case could be considered in the other case.
II. FACTS
The subject property is each of 61 lots located in
the Monticello Estates subdivision on the east side of Bend,
Oregon. Plaintiff (taxpayer) purchased all 61 lots in one
transaction on September 16, 2009, for an aggregate pur-
chase price of $1,320,000. The lots have been developed with
streets, curbs and utility connections but do not have houses
built upon them.
Taxpayer maintains that debris and rock was pres-
ent on 29 of the lots as of the assessment date and that any
valuation of such lots should take into account the cost of
removing that debris. Taxpayer relies on the testimony of
John Roeder, its principal owner. Defendant-Intervenor
Deschutes County Assessor (the county) defended this
matter along with Defendant Department of Revenue (the
department). The county relies on the testimony of its
appraiser, who visited the property on several occasions
bracketing in time the assessment date. The court finds that
taxpayer has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the debris was located on the lots as of the assessment
date. Accordingly, no adjustment for the presence of such
debris as of the assessment date is warranted.
III. ISSUE
The issue in this case is the real market value (RMV)
of each of the lots in the Monticello subdivision that are the
subject of this case.
IV. ANALYSIS
As in Roeder I, taxpayer first asserts that the val-
uation of the lots in the subdivision should be determined
Cite as 21 OTR 183 (2013) 185
using a wholesale or bulk discount method. For the reasons
stated in Roeder I, the court must reject that assertion.
The remaining method of valuation used by all par-
ties is the comparable sales approach. As to this method, the
record made in this case by taxpayer is essentially the same
as that made in Roeder I. Similarly, the criticisms raised
by taxpayer with respect to the valuation conclusions of the
county are essentially the same as in Roeder I.
Although the appraisal witness for the county was a
different person from the appraisal witness in Roeder I, the
basic methodology was the same. Similarly, the criticisms
raised by the county as to the conclusions of taxpayer’s
expert witness as to the comparable sales method were the
same as those made in Roeder I.
For the same reasons discussed in Roeder I, the
court is of the opinion that taxpayer has failed to carry its
burden of proof with respect to the question as to RMV of
the subject lots. As in Roeder I, the court is particularly con-
cerned with the absence of any paired-sales or other analysis
that supports the opinion of taxpayer’s witness as to the
existence and magnitude of the size adjustments he thought
were needed in the analysis of the witness for the county.
Also, the failure of the witness for taxpayer to make any
time trend adjustment is of concern to the court given the
dynamic nature of the market during the time in question.
V. CONCLUSION
The court finds that the RMV of the lots in question
is as maintained by the county. Now, therefore,
IT IS DECISION OF THIS COURT that the RMV of
the lots at issue in this case are as determined by Defendant-
Intervenor Deschutes County Assessor.