Tsai v. Dept. of Rev.

DECISION TC-MD 260580N 1 of 5
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax – Homestead Deferral
LILAN S. TSAI, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 260580N
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
DECISION	Defendant.
Plaintiff appeals Defendant Department of Revenue’s (the department) Deferral
Application Denial letter (denial letter) dated April 28, 2026. The department denied Plaintiff’s
application for Homestead Property Tax Deferral (homestead deferral), for property identified as
Account R499874 (subject property), for the 2026-27 tax year.1 The department denied
Plaintiff’s application for homestead deferral because Plaintiff “does not live in the home as their
principal dwelling as required by the definition of ‘homestead’ in ORS 311.666.” (Department’s
Ans at 1; see also Compl at 2.)
Plaintiff also named Washington County Assessor (the county) as a defendant. The
county filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendant Washington County or in
the Alternative Make the Complaint More Definite and Certain (Motion). The county argued
that the department is responsible for eligibility determination for homestead deferral, not the
county. (County’s Mot at 2, citing ORS 311.672(2).2) The court agrees and grants the Motion.
/ / /
1 Plaintiff identified the tax year appealed as 2025, but the deferral application denial was for the 2026-27
tax year. (See Compl at 2; Department’s Ans at 1.)
2 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2025 edition.

DECISION TC-MD 260580N 2 of 5
A case management conference was held on August 18, 2026, during which the parties
discussed Plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. Christy Baty appeared on
behalf of the department. During the conference, the court offered to hold a trial if Plaintiff had
any testimony or evidence to present. Plaintiff declined the offer of a trial and explained she did
not want to spend more money. This matter is now ready for decision. The court’s decision is
based on the pleadings and accepts as true the facts alleged by Plaintiff.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff admits she is not currently residing in the subject property, explaining that
circumstances have forced her to reside in Washington State to care for her ailing 82-year-old
brother. (Compl at 3.) She states that he cannot live alone, and she must live with and care for
him for the remainder of his life. (Id.) Although Plaintiff likes the location in Portland, she is
attempting to sell the subject property because she does not benefit from the services paid for by
property taxes. (Id.) Plaintiff’s income is limited and she is unable to pay property taxes. (Id.)
II. ANALYSIS
There are two issues before this court: (1) whether the subject property was Plaintiff’s
“homestead” for purposes of ORS 311.666(4); and (2) whether Plaintiff was absent from the
subject property “by reason of health,” as that term is used in ORS 311.670(2). Participation in
the homestead deferral program is “limited to individuals who are either older than 62 years of
age or suffering from certain severe physical disabilities, and allows enrollees to defer collection
of property taxes only for property used as a ‘homestead,’ as that term is defined” in statute.
Azar v. Dept. of Rev., 21 OTR 302 (2013). To qualify for deferral, an individual must also fall
below statutory limits on household income, net worth, and the real market value of the property
subject to deferral. See ORS 311.668(2); 311.670(6). Here, the parties appear to agree that

DECISION TC-MD 260580N 3 of 5
Plaintiff meets those additional requirements.
A. Was the Subject Property Plaintiff’s “Homestead” for Purposes of ORS 311.666(4)?
According to ORS 311.670(2)(a), “the property for which the claim is filed must have
been the homestead of the individual or individuals who file the claim for deferral for at least
five years preceding April 15 of the year in which the claim is filed.” A homestead “means the
owner occupied principal dwelling, either real or personal property, owned by the taxpayer and
the tax lot upon which it is located.” ORS 311.666(4).
In Azar, a taxpayer appealed the denial of a homestead deferral application where the
denial was based upon a determination that the taxpayer was not living at the property. 21 OTR
at 304. There, the taxpayer “may have lived roughly half-time on the subject property” during
the tax year at issue and, “at the time of the trial in this case[,] she was not living on the subject
property[.]” Id. at 303-04. The court found “that taxpayer was absent from the property, albeit
with periodic visits, for many years * * *.” Id. at 308. Therefore, the property was not
taxpayer’s homestead at the time her application was denied. Id.
Here, Plaintiff is similarly absent from the subject property for purposes of the homestead
deferral for the 2026-27 tax year. Indeed, the subject property has been listed for sale, and
Plaintiff currently lives in Washington State. The court next considers whether the subject
property may nevertheless qualify for deferral based on a health exception.
B. Was Plaintiff Absent From the Subject Property “By Reason of Health”?
The five-year homestead requirement in ORS 311.670(2)(a) is subject to an exception
when the individual claiming deferral is “required to be absent from the homestead by reason of
health[.]” ORS 311.670(2)(b)(A). This court considered the meaning of that exception in Azar.
/ / /

DECISION TC-MD 260580N 4 of 5
In Azar, the taxpayer was absent from the subject property because she was caring for her
adult son, who allegedly suffered from severe agoraphobia. See 21 OTR at 308. The department
argued that the “by reason of health” exception “refers exclusively to an absence by the person
applying for, or seeking to maintain, deferral for reasons of that person’s own health.” Id. at 309.
So, caring for another person does not qualify for the exception. The court reviewed the text,
context, and legislative history of the statute, concluding that “the legislature intended to limit
the exception to persons absent from property that would otherwise be their homestead for
reasons of their own health.” Id. at 310. Absence from property that is required “by reason of
health * * * most naturally arises when that person’s own health is at stake.” Id.
Here, like in Azar, Plaintiff was absent from the subject property because she was staying
in Washington State to care for her brother, who suffers from health issues. Plaintiff was not
absent from the subject property for reasons of her own health. Therefore, she fails to satisfy the
“by reason of health” exception to the five-year requirement for the homestead deferral.3
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff is not eligible for
homestead deferral for the 2026-27 tax year because the subject property was not her homestead
under ORS 311.666(4) and ORS 311.670(2)(a), and she was not absent from the subject property
“by reason of health” under ORS 311.670(2)(b)(A). Now, therefore,
/ / /
3 Although the court in Azar agreed with the Department’s interpretation that the “by reason of health”
exception refers to the taxpayer’s own health, the court added that it would have denied taxpayer’s appeal in any
event because she “failed * * * to satisfy the burden of proving that her absence from the subject property during the
time frame under consideration in this case was a result of her son’s medical or mental health needs.” Id. at 310-11.
Here, Plaintiff did not present evidence in a form that would satisfy the burden of proof (e.g., medical records and
sworn testimony) but the court accepted the facts she alleged as true. The court concludes that, based on the
statutory interpretation stated in Azar, Plaintiff’s appeal must be denied as a matter of law.

DECISION TC-MD 260580N 5 of 5
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant Washington County Assessor is
dismissed from this appeal, and the caption is amended as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiff’s appeal for property identified as account
R499874 for the 2026-27 tax year is denied.
To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon
Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State
Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem,
OR, Floor 4R.
Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of this Decision
or this Decision cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B.
This Decision was signed by Presiding Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and
entered on September 30, 2026.