Travel Hardship Before a Property-Tax Trial: Support the Remote-Appearance Request and Protect the Evidence

If travel makes a property-tax trial difficult, explain the hardship with the evidence the court requests. Distance alone may leave important questions unanswered: What will the trip cost, what resources are available and how will testimony be handled if the hearing is remote?

A January 20, 2026 Oregon Tax Court order in Mednansky, January 20 order, page 1–3 illustrates the preparation problem. The taxpayer described a roughly 250-mile trip each way, dental expenses and limited income. The court denied reconsideration of its January 7 refusal without prejudice, allowing a supplemental motion with a fuller financial showing or an express waiver of specified testimony. That was a case-specific Oregon order, not a universal financial test for remote hearings.

Identify the precise appearance requested

Read the trial notice and applicable procedure. Distinguish remote participation by a party, a witness’s remote testimony and a request to change the hearing date. Identify any objection already filed and the court’s current instructions. Preserve the request and response deadlines shown in the actual record.

Explain the practical problem: Travel, lodging, health-related arrangements or another concrete barrier. Support the claimed costs rather than relying on a general statement that the trip is burdensome. A cost estimate and its assumptions are more useful than an unexplained total.

Answer the court’s actual financial questions

In Mednansky, the court considered the asserted travel and dental costs but found the financial picture incomplete. It allowed supplementation with specified portions of a financial declaration, six months of statements for all accounts, the latest federal and state returns and a travel estimate. Mednansky, January 20 order, page 5–6.

Those items were the requested showing in that case. For a new matter, supply what the governing order and procedure require, identify any unavailable record and seek appropriate instructions. Filing sensitive financial material also requires attention to the court’s confidentiality and redaction rules.

Do not confuse a remote request with giving up testimony

The alternative discussed in the order was an express, knowing waiver of direct and rebuttal testimony, apart from document authentication, while preserving cross-examination. The taxpayer’s earlier statement that he saw no reason to testify did not clearly communicate that waiver. Mednansky, January 20 order, page 4–6.

That choice can affect whether facts necessary to the claim are proved. Before offering a waiver, identify which propositions require testimony, which records need authentication and what the opposing evidence may require in response. Convenience is not an adequate reason to surrender an evidentiary opportunity without assessing its effect.

Prepare for the evidence as well as the connection

Separate the technical plan from the evidence plan. Identify how exhibits will reach the court and other parties, which witnesses will appear and what the current order permits. Ask about unresolved arrangements before assuming a video link resolves them.

If the request is denied or conditioned, read exactly what the court allows next. Do not rely on the January dates in Mednansky as current deadlines. Your own notice, orders and applicable rules govern your response.

Bring the order and the proof behind the request

For review, bring the trial notice, remote-appearance request, objections, court instructions, travel estimate and available supporting records. Counsel can then assess the requested showing and the consequences of any proposed testimony limitation. The companion case analysis addresses a different issue: Whether the county complied with an order to produce tax cards.