[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6337106,"mediaKeyId","2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a","parentId",2274798,"title","Legislative update: Supreme Court ruling requires process to allow surplus claims in property foreclosures","audioSeconds",250,"startMs",3199790,"endMs",3450160,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a&start=3199&end=3450","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a/thumbnail_3199790.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6337106/Oregon/Legislative-update-Supreme-Court-ruling-requires-process-to-allow-surplus-claims-in-property-foreclosures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6337106-8fd99f9d814baa9e7ed0bf99be0b8f4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214738&Signature=RT1XqnMg5C0RkTKm-Ej8sAecQcByrH6HUZD6-WcDtE6Z1Lxw38oeTaNdr0pVLfphsL3G1-xjGUpmCltheU-RmbhaNz4b2D56cP8sUbp38yHbsQonORuJv1~U-BstUdWYcoMVeGeLtYnkiqn~h-0JPg0PR8FvKuI6Vj8K9aGzIAIeh41jtoqpB80VoJNquQ1bmyVvUzaP38-X-Sah05Y~q-Q5EhnqlVv6WUVuaUggNLnK-YGyceD7c2FV-c2JypO6U8F46Pb1lpbJvUnXAGrGAe9DE6fJW29CX9AlmThSfXYh~D4lbcxKFMzDw68bIwyyn~Fl8xd5~3fADdbl1bp8IA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","The House Committee on Revenue held an informational session on property‑foreclosure law following a recent Supreme Court decision that, according to the committee’s counsel, narrowly requires creation of a process by which surplus sale proceeds can be claimed.

Representative Levy (committee counsel) told members the court required a method \"whereby surplus can be claimed.\" Two principal issues identified for lawmakers and county officials were: (1) who must receive notice and when, and (2) whether counties should be required to use real‑estate agents in sales and, if so, whether that requirement should apply to all properties or only some types. Levy said the Supreme Court purposefully avoided prescribing the details, leaving courts and legislatures to devise appropriate procedures.

Committee members raised concerns about cost and administrative burden. Several members noted county officials had told them notice costs could be substantial. Levy said counties’ property portfolios vary — many tax‑foreclosure parcels are bare land or LLC‑owned lots with few encumbrances — and the cost of broad notice and realtor requirements could be significant. Levy said she is consulting title companies and other stakeholders to estimate those costs and was discussing drafting options that could, for instance, use \"may\" language to give counties discretion to use real‑estate agents for certain property types while requiring agents for residential occupied properties to better protect vulnerable owners.

Members discussed options used in other states; Levy said about a dozen states had statutes addressing similar issues and that Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota have recently updated their laws though the approaches differ. Committee members suggested tiered approaches keyed to property type or value, similar to how vehicle repossession practices distinguish by value, so higher‑value properties receive more extensive marketing efforts.

No bill was adopted at the meeting; Levy said discussions and drafting were ongoing and offered to return with draft language and cost estimates.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Revenue 02/11/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The committee received an informational update on implementing a recent Supreme Court ruling that requires a process for claiming surplus proceeds from tax‑foreclosure sales.","taxTitle","Revenue, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18093,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6337111,"Legislative Revenue Office outlines means‑tested retirement income credit set for review (HB 2,098)",441,2659290,3100365,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a&start=2659&end=3100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a/thumbnail_2659290.jpg","/articles/6337111/Oregon/Legislative-Revenue-Office-outlines-meanstested-retirement-income-credit-set-for-review-HB-2098","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6337111-6f1eabc4cd86aa395c2f807a4437153c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214738&Signature=AE2vPd~NM77OM33CyW0i7dCYsiXeFj6rfgxQxFCgVpnPkOaPmnhjjJzErz75uB0Kaa-zpO628dwqlYoZwd9RKNN01kQqXOsjO5KXj3efPvzhLjPPrcusPT3Ysd7BKNWiXcG5qy7v6r9hG8RPHYJ20XBOd1sBGsretPKbkr2eyVPPJuHC1KHFACMhseKu8U939juZKUyua6zO6kZhsXp-Xkp8woAVgfUq8-QB4BL6vNDvKyB-lpXf9LE-VH4l4AtAyOBwDgbOhZW59XcGBaxKQ~dRKJqEPkj-GcWL0eA~UOTMHNLKkSjI5MoI8oDekGmzYZETMvcukqXDy-bvfVDqYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Revenue opened and closed a public hearing on House Bill 2,098, a six‑year sunset extension for the certain retirement income tax credit. Legislative Revenue Office analyst Kyle Easton provided the committee with background on the credit’s design, eligibility limits and recent use trends.

Easton said the credit is available to taxpayers aged 62 or older and equals 9% of qualified pension income, which can include 401(k), 457 plans, IRAs, employer pensions and federal, state or local public retirement. Eligibility is means‑tested: Easton summarized the social‑security and household income thresholds in statute — social security benefits must be at or below $7,500 for single filers and $15,000 for joint filers, and household income plus social security must be at or below $22,500 (single) or $45,000 (joint). The LRO presentation included examples showing how the credit phases up and then phases out as income increases and how social‑security income affects the credit’s value.

Easton traced the credit’s history back to legislation in 1991 and explained that subsequent court decisions and law changes — including the Oregon Supreme Court’s 1998 Vogel decision affecting how PERS and federal retirement income are treated — altered the credit’s usage. He said the number of taxpayers claiming the credit declined from roughly 5,500 in 2013 to about 4,300 most recently, and recent inflationary boosts to Social Security pushed estimated cost from about $600,000 in 2022 to roughly $400,000 in 2023 and lower going forward.

Representative Reschke summarized the committee takeaway: uses of the credit are waning because the statute’s income thresholds are not indexed to inflation. LRO told the committee the credit’s cost would decline if extended without policy changes.

No witnesses were registered to testify on HB 2,098 and the committee closed the hearing.","House Bill 2,098 would extend the certain‑retirement‑income tax credit for six years. LRO told the House Committee on Revenue the credit is targeted to lower‑income taxpayers aged 62 and older, uses a 9% rate on qualified pension income, and is declining in use as thresholds are not indexed to inflation.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6337115,"Committee hears support for extending manufactured‑dwelling park closure credit; advocates stress preservation work",603,1762075,2365715,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a&start=1762&end=2365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a/thumbnail_1762075.jpg","/articles/6337115/Oregon/Committee-hears-support-for-extending-manufactureddwelling-park-closure-credit-advocates-stress-preservation-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6337115-8f40c13456cdd9455ab456ea245e3323/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214738&Signature=CqLnT8Wr7NBpOP3D0nWX-Gv977C4cjNzZ36nuHAid3IMZTZRyAFid1K4WbHC3haQNMqpeSRNBvOg8wXuQWY7occZjwo0tDLV~jJCX-1sVn4RGSl6Vo2ZyFPSNnJuQN~u4lN-oh0-~0wvn8zzaj-rpRZ8l6CWPSKIxdwkqDSlsAo3RClBXkYmy6Z40vIJ1xfhiWSv9CIlD6DLJEasslcAHdKhFxG3~Ffhjoth2Zr80wJ-dkHC2Rls0lnWkAYjvdEYyhfsuOsxSUn66AipsnHRjp07GkuxmK7kTm7cjMMfTP9dibrpgK0KPi6dd5cQ3gXU6BshkqB4wbWspnClSd9zfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Revenue opened a public hearing on House Bill 2,090, a placeholder bill that would extend for six years the manufactured‑dwelling park closure income tax credit.

Kyle Easton of the Legislative Revenue Office summarized the credit’s purpose: to mitigate costs for households forced to move when a manufactured‑dwelling park closes. Easton said the credit is a $5,000 refundable income tax credit available when a park is closed by the landlord or through eminent domain and that the manufactured dwelling must be the taxpayer’s owner‑occupied principal residence at the time of the closure. He noted the credit was enacted around 2007 and replaced an earlier, move‑focused credit.

Easton also reviewed related direct payments required by Oregon statute from park owners when a park closes. He said those payments are sized by unit type, historically $5,000 for a single‑wide up to $9,000 for larger units, and that the statutory amounts have been increased and indexed so current direct payments approximate $8,000 for a single‑wide and about $13,300 for larger units. Easton said the direct payments may be stacked with the refundable tax credit, and Oregon law provides a subtraction so those direct payments are not subject to Oregon income tax.

Committee members sought additional data. Representative Reschke asked how many manufactured‑home parks remain in Oregon; Easton said Oregon Housing and Community Services tracks parks and that he could provide the number, estimating roughly \"a thousand to 1,100\" parks when pressed.

Peter Hainline, testifying for CASA of Oregon, described the nonprofit’s work preserving manufactured‑housing communities and converting parks to resident ownership. Hainline said CASA has helped convert 28 parks to resident ownership and urged the committee to retain the credit as a modest but meaningful relief for households affected by closures. He also noted 40 park sales were reported to the state in the 14 months following the legislature’s opportunity‑to‑purchase notification law and said preservation resources remain limited.

Representative Smith asked about priorities between this credit and programs that would replace or upgrade very old manufactured homes to reduce utility burdens. Hainline and members noted the state has multiple programs and proposed funding streams related to preservation and replacement, including recent and proposed state investments, and said preservation and targeted replacement both have roles.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2,090 without taking final action.","House Bill 2,090 is a six‑year sunset extension of the manufactured‑dwelling park closure credit. LRO described the refundable $5,000 credit and related direct payments from park owners; advocates said preservation and resident ownership remain critical as parks sell or face closure.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6337120,"House committee hears farmers, LRO on six-year extension of crop-donation tax credit",1739,28440,1767460,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a&start=28&end=1767","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a/thumbnail_28440.jpg","/articles/6337120/Oregon/House-committee-hears-farmers-LRO-on-six-year-extension-of-crop-donation-tax-credit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6337120-e12f0cdae60d6c47d3d3f7cad10e493d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214738&Signature=HfeO9jHfUUH9nxQR8~dW~aPA4vpjAooinv82hZyHBOtZrn0U8ZalXzz7lfc005-u6XD9x3LdkgSG8j1MfRQY-zP6I2~FHYTeLiHE5q6yPCwoxPrFOcrqn37ntuJgMcy7TXKGHiqlTz7c8wDS2l4EiQNZ-CDkh2cgNQxPsDsCnuVLtlhRElHi35MKh41mPi60oJxUz9X6c2Vtlx7-GCnrAFpliWdnQzDY3hPjXzgn2~EEz40kVTWXdrmzg3zk89dUeHFGc4ws0nni5D~Y-jduknYOF9ZCwVbp6UVAzeoiFMF14EkkUCO7T7hVVSKQjag25rq7XN8KI90E~UJ1JgsgyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Revenue opened a public hearing Tuesday on House Bill 2,097, a six‑year sunset extension of the crop‑donation tax credit that provides growers a credit equal to 15% of the donated crop’s wholesale market value.

The bill would extend without policy changes an existing nonrefundable income tax credit intended to encourage producers to donate food to charities that serve people experiencing hunger. Kyle Easton of the Legislative Revenue Office told the committee the credit offsets collection, transportation and storage costs and is claimed by crop growers who donate food to qualifying nonprofit food banks or other charitable organizations.

The Legislative Revenue Office added that the credit is nonrefundable, may be carried forward (three‑year carryforward was identified during questioning), and has generated roughly $200,000 in annual revenue loss in recent years. \"It'll be about $200,000 per year going forward,\" Easton said while presenting historical use and cost data and a report attached to the committee materials. Easton also explained the interaction between the state credit and claimed deductions at the state and federal level, showing an illustrative example in which a $5,000 donation produced a $750 state credit and additional tax savings from deductions depending on a donor’s tax situation.

Farmers who testified described operational details and costs of donating produce and urged the committee to retain — and consider expanding — the credit. Haley Rattenklaw, who farms in Yamhill and Polk counties, described coordinating empty totes, multiple trips to collect and deliver donated product and the labor involved: \"That hundred dollars covers at least 10 hours of my time to go get the trailer, get it loaded, get it delivered,\" she said, describing one harvest of 5,123 pounds valued at about $666. Molly McCarter, a fourth‑generation grower, told the committee her operation donated 6,445 pounds of cauliflower in a recent year and cautioned that the tax credit does not fully offset production costs for donations.

Committee members asked the Legislative Revenue Office for more detail on who claims the credit and whether donations come mostly from large farms, small farms or garden‑scale donors. Easton said the report lacks a size distribution for claimants but staff could attempt to match donation records to tax filings to better describe the mix. Representative Reschke asked whether the donation must go to a nonprofit; Easton said qualifying recipients are charities or nonprofit food banks that distribute to people in need.

Several members and witnesses described Farmers Ending Hunger, a private nonprofit that coordinates donations from growers and processors; testimony noted prior partnerships with processors that facilitated frozen commodity donations but that recent processing changes have shifted more donations to fresh distribution. No vote was taken; the committee closed the public hearing and moved on to other bills.

The hearing included no final action on the bill; staff indicated the bill as filed is a six‑year extension of the existing credit with no policy changes.","The House Committee on Revenue received background from the Legislative Revenue Office and testimony from farmers supporting a six-year sunset extension of the crop-donation tax credit (House Bill 2,097). LRO staff described how the credit works, who it targets and estimated fiscal effects; growers described operational costs of donating produce.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6337100,"LRO presents IRS migration and federal gift‑tax primer in estate‑tax briefing",547,3773015,4320590,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a&start=3773&end=4320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2274798-7518b6651a76516901f032390c707b8a/thumbnail_3773015.jpg","/articles/6337100/Oregon/LRO-presents-IRS-migration-and-federal-gifttax-primer-in-estatetax-briefing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6337100-563d8f556494f53ec1c31d08faf8467a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214738&Signature=Ji4HIeUgex89D~33tAijQNpEkZ8EM0AqDQW8F-m-1xKy~N5~G6X2aBO0P1ErT33DixSPPa8q9ZWPIlhvkbhZ0nLQM0~wgVxeYp5GRuo-e3EYp2tv1uipwvUzIfUOzGTXmqQpePkFM~8pR5ujO6FOerMkEKwjvCTmE59Su3WKzjJscND2ZvcjX1EogRe0fZ6qNwhb0XhOQZ6NjJM8s5m8BHf4~ulHuEvE0zrCXviAftaCEHxvccJGHKCWc7mO9NQCEnp8CUtEcln5qeThvO9RtoDW6-EMDwCK~sBmg8g5p5oCtJHYSLn1cqB-dVxy~Eu7iSCMBtgXv~5d-zarY7Aj8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Revenue received an update from the Legislative Revenue Office with IRS‑sourced migration data and a short primer on the federal gift tax to support ongoing estate‑tax discussions.

John Hart of the Legislative Revenue Office said the office posted a handout in OLISS covering federal gift‑tax mechanics and migration data by age and adjusted gross income. Hart summarized federal rules: the federal gift and estate tax are unified, there is an annual gift exclusion (stated in committee materials as $19,000 per person for the year in the handout), and certain payments such as tuition, medical payments, spousal and charitable gifts are excluded from gift‑tax treatment. Hart also noted how tax basis differs for lifetime gifts (recipient takes donor’s basis) versus assets received through an estate (basis generally stepped to fair‑market value at date of death in the examples provided).

Hart presented IRS return‑based migration tables showing inflow and outflow of tax returns and AGI by age group. He cautioned the committee that returns are an imperfect proxy for migration because they reflect where taxpayers want correspondence mailed and do not capture non‑filers; nonetheless the data provide useful patterns. For all ages, LRO’s charts show historically net in‑migration for Oregon but two recent years of roughly even or negative net returns. For taxpayers age 65 and older the data previously showed net in‑migration; for a subset of taxpayers age 65+ with AGI over $200,000, returns still indicated net in‑migration through 2021, though AGI flows showed a slight outflow in 2022.

Committee members asked when 2023 data would be available; Hart said the IRS schedule governs availability and he would follow up with the committee on timing. Members noted the importance of age‑ and income‑specific migration patterns for estate‑tax policymaking, because demographic and income composition can change both population totals and the tax base.

The committee did not take formal action; LRO said it would provide more data or updates as requested.","Legislative Revenue Office provided the committee with IRS migration data by age and AGI and a brief primer on the federal gift tax and basis rules to inform estate‑tax discussions. The data show historical net in‑migration trends that flattened or reversed in recent years and examples for 65+ taxpayers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Legislative update: Supreme Court ruling requires process to allow surplus claims in property foreclosures

Legislative Revenue Office outlines means‑tested retirement income credit set for review (HB 2,098)

Committee hears support for extending manufactured‑dwelling park closure credit; advocates stress preservation work

House committee hears farmers, LRO on six-year extension of crop-donation tax credit

LRO presents IRS migration and federal gift‑tax primer in estate‑tax briefing