OAR 150-311-0150: Error Corrections and Valuation Judgment Under ORS 311.205

(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. (2) If it is unclear whether an error or an omission on the roll is a clerical error or an error in valuation judgment, the error or omission on the roll shall be considered an error or omission in valuation judgment. For example, an error in acreage or square footage in the appraiser field notes or a failure to value or list a component upon physical reappraisal may not be corrected because the error may not necessarily have resulted in an error of real market value as finally determined and carried to the assessment and tax roll. (3) As provided in ORS 311.205(1)(b), the officer in charge of the roll may correct an error in valuation judgment when a timely appeal has been filed in the Magistrate Division or Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court alleging that the value on the roll is incorrect, if the correction results in a reduction of the tax owed on the account. The officer may not correct an error in valuation judgment under 311.205(1)(b) in response to an untimely appeal or an appeal that is otherwise not within the jurisdiction of the tax court.