Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffzoning

Related Cases

Tualatin Development Co. v. Department of Revenue, 256 Or. 323, 473 P.2d 660

Facts

The case involved a nine-hole golf course located in King City, Oregon, which was part of a planned adult residential community developed by the plaintiff. The Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation had assigned a true cash value to the property for tax purposes, but the plaintiff contended that the property had no market value due to its unprofitability and zoning restrictions requiring it to be maintained as open space. The golf course had operated at a loss since its opening, and the surrounding residential lots had increased in value, but the golf course itself was not generating any profit.

‘The subject property consists of a nine-hole golf course in King City, an incorporated city near Portland, Oregon. The Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation placed a true cash value of $161,200 on the property for the tax year 1967-68 and $140,600 for the year 1968-69. The plaintiff contends that the property has no true cash or market value.’

Issue

Did the golf course property owned by the plaintiff have any true cash value for property tax purposes given its unprofitability and zoning restrictions?

Rule

Under ORS 308.232, all property must be assessed at its true cash value, which is defined as market value as of the assessment date. If property has no immediate market value, its true cash value shall be the amount that would justly compensate the owner for loss of the property.

‘True cash value’ is defined by ORS 308.205 as meaning ‘* * * market value as of the assessment date. * * * With respect to property which has no immediate market value, its true cash value shall be the amount of money that would justly compensate the owner for loss of the property.’

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the golf course had no immediate market value due to the zoning restrictions that required it to be maintained as open space. The court noted that the property was unprofitable and that the owner could not alter its use without violating the zoning requirements. The court emphasized that the lack of profitable use and the restrictions imposed by the planning commission effectively rendered the property valueless for tax purposes.

The Tax Court held in this case that plaintiff's property had no true cash value for the years in question. We agree with that conclusion.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the golf course property had no true cash value for the tax years in question and affirmed the Tax Court's decision.

The decision of the Tax Court was amply supported by the evidence, and is affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the golf course had no true cash value for property tax purposes due to its unprofitability and zoning restrictions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 102 S.Ct. 2498, 73 L.Ed.2d 93, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 21,683

Scott & Williams, Inc. v. Board of Taxation, 117 N.H. 189, 372 A.2d 1305

Edwards v. California Sports, Inc., 206 Cal.App.3d 1284, 254 Cal.Rptr. 170

Associated Petroleum Transport, Ltd. v. Shepard, 53 N.M. 52, 201 P.2d 772, 1949 -NMSC- 002

Babcock v. Nudelman, 367 Ill. 626, 12 N.E.2d 635