Bridge City Golf Inc. v. Washington County Assessor

DECISION TC-MD 240390G 	1
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
BRIDGE CITY GOLF INC., dba ENVISION
GOLF,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	TC-MD 240390G
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSESSOR,
CORRECTED DECISION1	
Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff’s Complaint asks for a waiver of the 50-percent penalty for failing to file a personal
property return. The subject property is identified as Account P2221140, and the tax year at
issue is 2023–24.2 Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff did not file a 2023 personal property return for the subject property. (Compl at
5.) Plaintiff describes the reason for the failure to file as follows:
“During the fiscal year in question, Envision Golf was transitioning
between Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and bookkeepers. This necessary
change was implemented to enhance our financial management but unfortunately
resulted in a temporary disruption in our tax filing processes. Consequently, the
personal property tax filing for [2023] was inadvertently missed.”
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff emphasizes that its failure to file in 2023 was “unintentional” and an
1 This Corrected Decision is issued to correct a typographical error in the caption of the original Decision,
entered October 8, 2024.
2 The Complaint identifies the year at issue as 2022, which is the year Plaintiff acquired assets reportable
on a 2023 return. Attachments to the Complaint state that Plaintiff did not file a return in 2023, and Plaintiff does
not contest Defendant’s assertion that the penalty was imposed for failure to file the 2023 return.

DECISION TC-MD 240390G 	2
“oversight,” rather than due to any “intent to evade tax obligations.” (Id.) Plaintiff filed a 2024
return. (Id. at 5.; Mot Summ J at 1.)
After receiving Plaintiff’s 2024 return, Defendant “determined that there was omitted
property from the Plaintiff not filing timely in the prior 2023-2024 tax year.” (Mot Summ J at
1.) Defendant added value to the 2023–24 roll as omitted property and assessed Plaintiff a 50-
percent penalty under ORS 308.296.3 (Id. at 1–2.)
In its Complaint, Plaintiff does not contest the 2023–24 taxes, but asks the court to waive
the 50-percent penalty. (Compl at 1.)
II. ANALYSIS
The only issue for decision is whether Plaintiff is entitled to a waiver of its 2023–24 late
filing penalty.
Those who own, possess, or control taxable personal property must file a personal
property tax return with the county assessor by March 15 each year. ORS 308.290(1)(a).
Untimely filing results in a penalty equal to a percentage of the tax that increases depending on
how late the return is filed. ORS 308.296(1) – (4). The maximum penalty is 50 percent of the
tax, and it is reserved for the taxpayer who either files a personal property tax return after
August 1 “or who fails to file a return[.]” ORS 308.296(4). Various statutory provisions allow
for waiver of the late-filing penalty by the property tax appeals board, by the assessor, or by this
court. ORS 308.296(6) (board); 308.296(8) (assessor); 305.422 (court).
This court’s authority to waive the late-filing penalty is found in ORS 305.422:
“If a penalty under ORS 308.295 or 308.296 for the failure to timely file a
real, combined or personal property return as required by ORS 308.290 is the
subject of an appeal to the tax court, the court may waive the liability for all or a
portion of the penalty upon a proper showing of good and sufficient cause.”
3 All references the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.

DECISION TC-MD 240390G 	3
Thus, a waiver is available at this court “upon a proper showing of good and sufficient cause.”
The term “good and sufficient cause” is not defined specifically for ORS 305.422, and
magistrates of this court have applied the definition found in ORS 305.288(5)(b).4 3D Logics,
LLC v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, TC–MD 220439R, 2023 WL 2401456 at *2 (Or Tax M Div
Mar 8, 2023) (stating “court has historically used ‘good and sufficient cause’ as defined else
where in chapter 305 as a guide, including in ORS 305.288(5)(b)”); Stompbox Music Co. v.
Washington Cnty. Assessor, TC–MD 180377N, 2019 WL 1168024 at *1 (Or Tax M Div Mar 13,
2019) (stating “court has adopted the definition of ‘good and sufficient cause’ found in ORS
305.288”).
Plaintiff’s circumstances do not qualify as good and sufficient cause under ORS
305.288(5)(b). That statute requires that a taxpayer’s failure to act be due to “an extraordinary
circumstance that is beyond the control of the taxpayer,” and that it not be caused by
“inadvertence, oversight, [or] lack of knowledge[.]” ORS 305.288(5)(b). Plaintiff was not
prevented from filing by a circumstance beyond its control, and its alleged reasons for not filing
include “inadverten[ce]” and “oversight,” which are specifically excluded by ORS
305.288(5)(b)(B).
4 ORS 305.288(5) states:
“For purposes of this section:
“(a) ‘Current tax year’ has the meaning given the term under ORS 306.115.
“(b) ‘Good and sufficient cause’:
“(A) Means an extraordinary circumstance that is beyond the control of the taxpayer, or the
taxpayer’s agent or representative, and that causes the taxpayer, agent or representative to fail to pursue the
statutory right of appeal; and
“(B) Does not include inadvertence, oversight, lack of knowledge, hardship or reliance on
misleading information provided by any person except an authorized tax official providing the relevant
misleading information.”

DECISION TC-MD 240390G 	4
It may be argued whether the ORS 305.288 definition of “good and sufficient cause”
ought to apply under ORS 305.422. See 3D Logics, 2023 WL 2401456 at *2 (acknowledging
taxpayer’s argument that ORS 305.288 definition does not apply to 305.422). Nevertheless,
neither party has argued for a different definition, and the court is unaware of a case where
oversight by a taxpayer’s bookkeepers has been held good cause for excusing a deadline or a
penalty. Cf. 3D Logics, 2023 WL 2401456 at *2 (holding that “under any definition of ‘good
and sufficient cause,’ a lack of knowledge of the filing requirement does not meet that
standard”).
Plaintiff has not made a “proper showing of good and sufficient cause” for the court to
waive liability. See ORS 305.422.
III. CONCLUSION
There is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendant is entitled to prevail as a matter
of law. See TCR 47 C; TCR–MD 13 B (applying TCR 47).5 Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. Plaintiff’s appeal of Account P2221140 for the 2023–24 tax year is hereby
denied.
POUL F. LUNDGREN
MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
5 Tax Court Rules (TCR); Tax Court Rules – Magistrate Division (TCR–MD)

DECISION TC-MD 240390G 	5
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 document was signed by Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and
entered on October 9, 2024.