S054579, Opinion — Sharps v. Dept. of Rev.

531
Argued and submitted November 7,judgment of Tax Court affirmed
December 13, 2007, reconsideration denied April 16, 2008
David B. SHARPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Defendant-Respondent.
(TC 4684; SC S54579)
173P3d1223
CJS, Interest and Usury; Consumer Credit§ 42.
En Banc
On appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.*
Henry C. Breithaupt, Judge.
David B. Sharps, appellant pro se, filed the brief for
himself.
Rochelle A. Nedeau, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued 	the 	cause 	and 	filed 	the 	brief 	for 	defendant-
respondent. 	With her on the 	brief were Hardy Myers,
18 OTR 446 (2006).

532 	Sharps v. Dept. of Rev.
Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and
Joseph P. Laronge, Assistant Attorney General.
WALTERS,J.
The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

Cite as 343 Or 531 	533
WALTERS,J.
Taxpayer in this real property tax case appeals from
a judgment of the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court
entered in 2007 for the tax year 2002-03. In that judgment,
the Tax Court ordered that Benton County issue taxpayer a
tax refund in a specified amount for real property taxes he
overpaid, and that interest accrue on the refund amount at
the rate of one percent per month from the date of the judg-
ment until paid. On appeal, taxpayer contends that the Tax
Court erred in determining the amount of the refund. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.
Taxpayer asserts that Benton County (the county)
owes him a larger refund, based on taxes he paid and refunds
that the county issued in tax years 1999-2003. In tax year
1999-2000, the county assessed taxes on taxpayer's real prop-
erty based on its determination of the real market value of
the property. Taxpayer paid the assessment, but successfully
challenged the property valuation in the Magistrate Division
of the Tax Court. Because the magistrate's decision did not
issue until after the county assessed taxes on the property for
the following tax year, the amount that the county assessed
in that following year also was incorrect, and taxpayer again
appealed. In that and succeeding years, as each tax year's
appeal became final, the county reduced the real market
value and corrected the tax rolls, but in doing so it made a
number of errors. As a result, the county issued taxpayer var-
ious credits and two refund checks for overpayments that he
had made. Taxpayer does not contest that, taking into consid-
eration those credits and refunds and the county's payment
of the 2003 judgment, the county will have reimbursed him
for all of the principal sums that he is due. Nevertheless, tax-
payer claims that the county owes him an additional sum in
interest. That assertion arises out of the fact that, when tax-
payer received two refund checks that the county issued him,
he refused one and did not cash the other. Taxpayer contends
that, because the county issued those two refund checks pre-
maturely, the checks were invalid, and, as a result, he was
not required to accept or cash them. Taxpayer contends,
therefore, that interest continued to accrue on the principal
amounts of the checks after the county issued them.

534 	Sharps v. Dept. of Rev.
Taxpayer first argues that Oregon law did not per-
mit the county to pay refunds until all litigation concerning
the real property was complete. That argument is incorrect.
ORS 311.806(1)(a) requires the county to pay refunds when-
ever a Tax Court order constitutes a "final determination of
the matter." 1 Each time taxpayer appealed the county's
assessment to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court for a
particular year, he obtained a ruling that was a final decision
of the Tax Court for that tax year. Each case that taxpayer
brought in each tax year was complete when the magistrate's
decision issued, because taxpayer did not further appeal the
magistrate's decision. See TCR-MD 19 (magistrate's decision
final if not appealed within 60 days). The fact that taxpayer
then brought new cases in the Magistrate Division in subse-
quent years does not mean that the magistrate's decision for
each preceding tax year was not a "final determination of the
matter" as to that tax year.
In his reply brief, taxpayer appears to accept that
conclusion, but he appears to argue, instead, that the county
issued the refunds before the magistrate issued a decision in
particular tax years. The record is difficult to decipher, but in
the end we think it irrelevant whether each refund was tied
to and followed a specific magistrate decision. As noted, ORS
311.806(1)(a) required the county to issue refunds following
orders of the Tax Court. That does not mean, however, that
the statute somehow prohibited the county from issuing
those refunds earlier. ORS 311.806(1)(£) permits the county
to issue refunds whenever, through excusable neglect or
error, a taxpayer pays taxes in excess of the amount legally
chargeable. Taxpayer's objection that the government paid
1 ORS 311.806(1)(a) provides:
"Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the county governing body shall
refund, out of the refund reserve account provided in ORS 311.807, or the
unsegregated tax collections account provided in ORS 311.385, taxes on prop-
erty collected by an assessor or tax collector pursuant to a levy of the assessor
or of any taxing district or tax levying body or pursuant to ORS 311.255, plus
interest thereon as provided in ORS 311.812, in the following cases:
"(a) To the person described in ORS 309.100(1) and in whose name a peti-
tion was filed, whenever a change in the value of property is ordered by a
county board of property tax appeals and no appeal is taken or can be taken
from the board's order, or whenever ordered by the Oregon Tax Court or the
Supreme Court and the order constitutes a final determination of the matter."

Cite as 343 Or 531 	535
him money before it was ordered to do so, while novel, is not
well taken. Taxpayer can point to no statute or legal principle
prohibiting payment of a refund before issuance of a magis-
trate decision, and we can find none. Taxpayer was certainly
within his rights to decide that he did not wish to accept or
cash the refund checks that the county issued, but the county
is not required to pay interest to taxpayer as a result of his
choice.
The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.