Legal Win for Oregon Farmers: OPOA Stops Unjust Farm Tax Disqualification

The OPOA Legal Center has secured another major victory for Oregon’s rural landowners— this time defending a farm family, the Browns, from an unfair tax penalty by Multnomah County. The Oregon Tax Court ruled that the county’s decision to remove the Browns’ property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) special assessment was invalid. As a result, the court restored the Browns’ farm tax status and reaffirmed their right to EFU special assessment.

The Problem: A Confusing Form and a Rushed Judgment

In early 2024, Multnomah County sent the Browns a survey asking about current farm use. The form was vague and poorly designed, leading to confusion about what constituted “farming” under Oregon tax law and how the County would use the information. The Browns filled it out as best they could, noting that they were growing timber and selling firewood— an activity they believed qualified as farm use – but didn’t list other farm activities taking place on the property.  

The county then made a phone call. On the call the Browns clarified that they were growing timber and selling firewood on their 10 acres, which they believed to be a farm product. They also said that they had been farming the property – previously selling hay, leasing out the property for pastureland, and selling berries and other row crops – they just hadn’t sold any products yet in 2024. 

The County then jumped to conclusions. Based solely on the survey and the brief phone call, they decided the Browns weren’t farming and disqualified their land from EFU status.

Most importantly – the County never inspected the property, never documented its condition, and never gave the Browns a fair chance to understand the law or show their property.

Oregon’s Regulatory Burden: A System Built for Bureaucrats, Not Farmers

This case highlights a deeper problem for farmers: Oregon’s land use and tax regulations have become so complex that farmers are expected to be lawyers, tax experts, and accountants just to stay in compliance. The rules governing EFU status are dense, technical, and often poorly communicated.

For small farms, navigating this regulatory maze is nearly impossible. A single misstep or misunderstood form can trigger costly penalties, even when the land is actively being used for agriculture. OPOA believes farmers should be able to focus on growing food and stewarding the land— not decoding bureaucratic language.

The idea that a County could ignore procedures based exclusively on information provided by a taxpayer (who is not an expert on tax law) is a scary thought. This is why we took the case.

The Win: County Assessors Must Follow Proper Procedures Before Disqualifying Properties

Oregon law has specific procedures that county tax assessors must follow before disqualifying property from special assessment. Once a tax assessor determines that property may no longer qualify for farmland special assessment, they are required by Oregon law to do three things:

1. Make a reasonable effort to contact the owner, owner’s agent or person using the land;
2. Request the recent history of the property’s use; and
3. Make a site inspection of the property.

In addition, Oregon law requires the assessor to maintain a record of the inspection, the contact with the property owner, and property conditions for at least three years. 

These requirements are not optional – they serve to ensure that disqualification is based on verifiable, documented evidence.

In this case, Multnomah County skipped the inspection entirely and failed to keep any records. Their argument? That a site visit wasn’t necessary because in the County’s opinion, the Browns “admitted” to a non-qualifying use on the form and on the call. According to the County, following the right procedures would have been a waste of their time.

OPOA argued that Multnomah County wasn’t excused from following the law and reminded the Court that the county never even attempted to observe the property: 

[T]axpayers should not bear the burden of making sure that the assessor follows the law – especially when the law is abundantly clear. Despite Defendant’s best efforts to shift the burden of knowledge, record keeping, and proof onto the taxpayer, the Defendant is ultimately responsible for following the proper procedures outlined in the rule prior to making a disqualification. The Defendant has provided no evidence that the assessor fact-checked their decision by observing the property in any way.

The court agreed with OPOA and rejected the County’s reasoning. The law doesn’t allow counties to bypass the process just because they think they already know the answer. The discovery of possible disqualifying conditions is what triggers the need for inspection— not what excuses it.

The court ruled that Multnomah County’s disqualification was procedurally invalid and restored the Browns’ special assessment status.

The Outcome: A Win for Fairness and Accountability

This decision sets a strong precedent: counties must follow the rules, and landowners are entitled to a fair and documented process.

It also highlights the need for clearer communication, better-designed forms, and frankly, laws that reflect the diversity of farm operations in Oregon. We know that Oregon’s agricultural landscape is diverse, and we believe every farm, no matter its size or style, deserves respect and protection under the law.

This case is a reminder that counties must be held accountable when they overstep. If you’ve received a confusing notice, survey, or disqualification letter, don’t assume the county is right.

OPOA is here to help—and we’re winning.

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.