Williamson v. Lane County Assessor

DECISION TC-MD 250549G 1 of 5
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
WILLIAM GEORGE WILLIAMSON II, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 250549G
v.
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR,
DECISION	Defendant.
On Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, this case concerns calculating additional
taxes under ORS 308A.703 on property disqualified from nonexclusive farm use zone (non-
EFU) special assessment for the 2025-26 tax year.1 Plaintiff does not contest the subject’s
disqualification but seeks to exclude additional taxes attributable to “2021 and 2022.” 2 The
subject property is identified as Accounts 0068369, 0068351, 0068377, and 0068385.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The subject property is a ranch near Junction City that was specially assessed as non-EFU
farmland for many years. (Def’s Mot Summ J at 1.) In 2021, and again in 2022, Plaintiff raised
a cow on the subject property for buyers who had committed to purchase the animal for an
estimated $3,000. (Ptf’s Ltr, Jan 12, 2026; Def’s Mot Summ J at 2.) In each year, Plaintiff’s
cow died before the sale was consummated, and the cow’s beef was never processed. (Id.)
Defendant disqualified the subject accounts from special assessment on June 30, 2025,
having determined that “the subject property does not meet the minimum income requirements
and is not currently being farmed.” (Def’s Mot Summ J at 1; Compl at 2.) In conjunction with
1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.
2 Plaintiff amended the claim made in his Complaint in his letter of December 8, 2025.

DECISION TC-MD 250549G 2 of 5
that disqualification, Defendant calculated additional taxes based on each account’s tax savings
from special assessment for tax years 2020-21 to 2024-25. (Compl at 2–5; Def’s Mot Summ J at
1–2.)
The parties agree that the subject accounts were properly disqualified from special
assessment. (Ptf’s Ltr, Dec 8, 2025.) Plaintiff challenges the inclusion of additional taxes for
“2021 and 2022” in Defendant’s calculation. (Ptf’s Ltr, Jan 12, 2026.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue raised by Plaintiff is whether Defendant correctly included tax savings from
2021-22 and 2022-23 in calculating the subject’s additional taxes pursuant to ORS 308A.703.
Because Plaintiff’s objection relies on his attempts to generate farm income in 2021 and 2022,
the analysis below addresses both non-EFU income requirements and the additional tax
calculation.
A. Farm Use Special Assessment and Income Requirements
The legislature’s stated purpose for specially assessing farmland is to preserve and foster
agriculture’s contribution to “Oregon’s character and economy.” ORS 308A.050. Farmland is
specially assessed, lest taxation based on market values “attributable to urban influences or
speculative purposes” encourage conversion of farmland to other uses. Id.
Special assessment of farmland is governed by different statutes, depending on zoning.
Farmland zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU) generally remains in special assessment so long as
it is used for that purpose, regardless of whether it is profitable. See ORS 308A.062(1).
Farmland with zoning that also permits nonfarm use—i.e., non-EFU farmland—must meet an
additional requirement. Besides being farmed, such land must satisfy an income requirement to
remain in special assessment. See ORS 308A.071.

DECISION TC-MD 250549G 3 of 5
Unless an exception applies, non-EFU farmland can only be specially assessed if its farm
generates a certain amount of gross income “in three out of the five full calendar years
immediately preceding the assessment date[.]” ORS 308A.071(2)(a). There are listed
exceptions for income failure due to flooding or drought. ORS 308A.071(6).
In the present case, the subject property was disqualified from non-EFU farm use special
assessment because it was not being farmed and it did not meet the income requirements of ORS
308A.071 as of June 30, 2025. That is, the gross income of its farm had been insufficient in at
least three of the five years from 2020 through 2024. Plaintiff does not dispute the
disqualification. The only issue here pertains to the consequences of the disqualification.
B. Additional Taxes upon Disqualification from Special Assessment
When property ceases to qualify for special assessment, some of the tax foregone by the
county is recouped by placing an additional tax on the property’s account on the next assessment
and tax roll. ORS 308A.703(2). For disqualified non-EFU farmland, that “additional tax” is the
amount by which the property’s tax was reduced under special assessment for up to five years
before being disqualified. See ORS 308A.703(2), (3)(d)(A).
Here, the subject was non-EFU property disqualified from farm use special assessment
on the 2025-26 tax roll. The five-year period for calculating additional taxes therefore included:
2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25. See ORS 308A.703(3)(d)(A). The years
Plaintiff requests to be excluded from that calculation—“2021 and 2022”—fall within that range.
Plaintiff argues that 2021 and 2022 should not be included in the additional tax
calculation because he was raising cows in those years and “only failed to meet the income
requirements due to ‘crop failure,’ the death of [his] cattle.” (Ptf’s Ltr, Jan 12, 2026.) Again,
Plaintiff does not challenge the subject’s disqualification from special assessment. His argument

DECISION TC-MD 250549G 4 of 5
is that farming activity on the subject during 2021 and 2022 should exclude those two years from
the additional tax calculation.
That argument does not succeed because additional tax is calculated for all years within
the lookback period immediately preceding disqualification from farm use special assessment,
not just for years when the land was not being farmed. See 308A.703(2). Indeed, it is to be
expected that the land was being farmed during all the lookback years—if it were not, it should
have been disqualified earlier. Additional tax is not a retrospective determination of whether
land previously granted special assessment was in fact eligible. It is a recoupment of tax benefits
previously extended for the purpose of deterring “conversion of agricultural land to other uses.”
See ORS 308A.050. The additional tax supports that purpose by taking back recent tax savings
where farmland has in fact been converted to another use.
The possibility of the “crop failure” mentioned by Plaintiff could be relevant to the
income requirement, or to determining farm use, but not to additional tax. Properties may be
excused from the income requirement in years where crops fail due to drought or flood, and farm
use depends on the farmer’s purpose rather than results. See ORS 308A.071(6); 308A.056(1).
Defendant has not disputed that Plaintiff was farming in 2021 and 2022. However, additional
tax does not concern the worthiness of the farmland to have been in special assessment during
the lookback period; it is imposed because of something that happened later, the farmland’s
disqualification.
The subject was disqualified in 2025-26 for multiple reasons, including failure to meet
income requirements and a lack of farming activity. The five preceding years must therefore be
included in the subject’s additional tax calculation—including 2021 and 2022. See ORS
308A.703(3)(d)(A).

DECISION TC-MD 250549G 5 of 5
III. CONCLUSION
The calculation of additional taxes on the subject properly included property tax savings
in 2021 and 2022, irrespective of Plaintiff’s ranching activity during those years. Now,
therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted.
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 Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and entered on
September 10, 2026.