Citation Numbers: 7 Or. Tax 249
Judges: CARLISLE B. ROBERTS, Judge.
Filed Date: 10/21/1977
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Submitted on briefs.
Decision for defendant rendered October 21, 1977.
Plaintiffs, complying with the provisions of ORS
The taxpayer, Mildred L. Walling, residing in Marion County, Oregon, had, for at least two years prior to January 1, 1976, enjoyed the partial exemption from property taxation allowed a veteran's widow's homestead under ORS
ORS
The form on which a claim is to be made by the widow to the assessor has been prepared by the *Page 251
Department of Revenue and comes in duplicate. Apparently, it was last revised in October 1973. At the top of each copy, in boldface type, is a statement: "Application For War Veteran's Property Tax Exemption As Provided By ORS
[1, 2.] On November 17, 1976, the taxpayer petitioned the Department of Revenue under the provisions of ORS
"(1) Any taxpayer may apply to the Director of the Department of Revenue for a recommendation that the value of certain property be stricken from the assessment roll and that any taxes assessed against such property be stricken from the tax roll on the grounds of hardship.
"(2) As used in this section, 'hardship' means a situation where property is subject to taxation but would have been exempt had there been a timely filing of a valid claim for exemption or cancellation of assessment, and where the failure to make timely application for the exemption or cancellation was by reason of good and sufficient cause."
The defendant's Opinion, No. VL 77-53, states:
"This matter [the taxpayer's petition] was commenced as a request pursuant to ORS
307.475 , but the facts as developed are sufficient to constitute an appeal *Page 252 under ORS306.520 [review of an act of the county assessor]."
The court notes that, in prior cases under the "hardship" statute, the department has ruled that the "good and sufficient cause" does not include a failure to file a timely application because of oversight, inadvertence or ignorance of the law. This court has approved defendant's rule, substantially, inNat'l Metallurgical Corp. v. Dept. of Rev.,
In finding for the taxpayer, the defendant has relied upon its interpretation of ORS
"In the event any of the following conditions occur before the assessment roll of any year becomes a tax roll, the exemption otherwise allowable under ORS
307.250 shall terminate and not be allowed on such roll:"(1) If the veteran or widow sells or contracts to sell the property designated for the exemption, and such veteran or widow owns no other property to which the exemption may apply." (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant cites an informal opinion of legal counsel under date of November 1, 1961 (designated as *Page 253
PTLA(CE) 307.270, p 3; OF 1041-V), construing ORS
"Transfer of Exemption. Taxpayer sold his property on which an exemption was allowed, and moved to a different house which he had owned for several years. The assessor wrongly canceled the exemption and caused the roll to be debited by the amount exempted. The correct step under the law would have been to transfer the exemption to the new homestead of the veteran. ORS
307.270 provides that a veteran's exemption applies to the veteran's homestead or personal property which he owns or holds under a recorded contract for the purchase thereof, before July 1, of the year in which the exemption is claimed. ORS307.290 provides that if the veteran sells the exempt property, the exemption shall terminate unless he owns other property to which the exemption may apply. The exemption should have been transferred to the new homestead of the veteran." (Emphasis supplied.)
The procedure to be followed to effectuate the exception in ORS
[3.] Based on what appears to be a long-established interpretation of the statute by the administrator, the court accepts the defendant's interpretation of the language in ORS
[4.] The plaintiffs have argued that an exemption is not automatically provided for property owned by an *Page 254
eligible taxpayer. Instead, the taxpayer must affirmatively seek the exemption. He or she is required to file a claim "in writing" "on forms supplied by the assessor." ORS
The parties stipulated that the summary of facts in the Opinion and Order of the Department of Revenue, No. VL 77-53, is correct and undisputed. One such fact is: "Petitioner contacted the Assessor's office on the first or second of July and filed an application to transfer the exemption to the new property." (Emphasis supplied.) It is assumed by the court that this means that the application was filed on the regular form, supplied by the assessor, and therefore contained the data needed by the assessor to effect the transfer. This assumption is aided by Plaintiffs' Opening Memorandum, 1, lines 24-26. This leaves the question of timely application (the assessor's principal question) and whether the language of ORS
"(1)(a) * * * except that when the property designated is acquired after March 20 the claim for that year shall be filed within 30 days after the date of acquisition."
This time structure runs afoul of the time provision in ORS
"The assessor shall deliver the roll to the tax collector *Page 255 not later than October 15 each year. The assessment roll shall be delivered in counties in which the assessor does not prepare a separate assessment roll and a separate tax roll. The assessment roll thereafter shall be a tax roll. * * *"
[5, 6, 7.] The specified conditions required here are a sale before October 15 without ownership of other property to which the exemption could apply. This language evidences the legislative intent to allow a transfer of the exemption to appropriate property. The most complete utilization of the provision would be to allow a claim for such transfer up to and including October 14. The 30-day time provision in ORS
The defendant's Order No. VL 77-53, dated February 1, 1977, is affirmed. The County Assessor and the Tax Collector for Marion County shall amend the 1976-1977 tax roll to show the allowance of the veteran's widow's exemption allowed by ORS
Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of Portland , 204 Or. 153 ( 1955 )
Keyes v. CHAMBERS , 209 Or. 640 ( 1957 )
Nat'l Metallurgical Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. , 7 Or. Tax 142 ( 1977 )
Norbud, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 6 Or. Tax 335 ( 1976 )
Pratum Co-Op Whse. v. Dept. of Rev. , 6 Or. Tax 130 ( 1975 )
Jim Fisher Motors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 7 Or. Tax 90 ( 1977 )