Case law

American Portable Irrigation Co. v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 360 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 29, 1969

The commission has adopted Reg 317.070(2) which states in part: "* * * In order to qualify for the offset, the corporation must show that it was the legal owner of the personal property and that the taxes were assessed to … ORS 57.480(4) and (5) clearly give the surviving corporation all the rights, privileges, immunities and franchises of the merged corporation and also make the surviving corporation responsible for all the liabilities and

R.L.K. & Co. v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 584 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 30, 1964

FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY Neither the statutes nor the cases clearly define a federal instrumentality immune from state and local taxation. … All are clearly covered expressly or by implication. That ease establishes that these restrictions are not sufficient to destroy the possessory character of plaintiff’s interest under the special use permit.

Smith Kline & French v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 532 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 24, 1964

A corporation qualified to do business in Oregon pays a certain amount of excise tax. … Furthermore, by prohibiting certain state taxation Congress creates an exemption or immunity, not merely a regulation.

First Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 249 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 4, 1963

Immunity from taxes on the ground of being a public charity is an affirmative defense and the burden of establishing the eleemosynary character of an institution is upon the party asserting it. Ackerman v. … Clearly, the construction of "owned" in this statute as referring only to legal title does not appear unreasonable from the language itself.

Schmitt v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 25 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 14, 1962

No claim is made by the plaintiffs that their trust qualifies under ORS 316.340, which it clearly does not, nor can the commission, by its general demurrer, question the charitable nature of the donee religious corporations … Clearly, under this federal statute, though the plaintiffs’ trust is not a qualifying organization, the plaintiffs’ gifts of re *28 mainder interests qualify for deduction, because the clear and well-established meaning of

Atlas Foundry & MacHine Co. v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 200 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 29, 1965

The legislative history of P.L. 86-272 clearly indicates that it was the intention of Congress to declare that a taxable nexus was established in the host state if a sales office was maintained in that state. *204 The Talmadge … Amendment eliminated a paragraph from the original bill which would have granted immunity to a sales office.

Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 440 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 1990

It found that it established a new principle of law by overruling prior precedent. This court finds that Davis v. Michigan was a case of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. … The Davis case established a new principle pertaining to intergovernmental immunity which was not clearly foreshadowed by prior decisions. *445 The second test of Chevron is: Will retrospective operation further or retard

Santa Fe Natural Tabacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

25 Or. Tax 124 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2022

Id. at 382 (also stating that “activities such as warranty work, that serve an independent business purpose apart from the solicitation of orders for sales, do not qualify for immunity under PL 86-272.”). … , depending on whether that activ- ity “establishes a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State.”

Ann Sacks Tile Stone v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4879 (or.tax 11-29-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 29, 2011

On the one hand, Pub L No 86-272 clearly recognizes that taxpayers may undertake *Page 10 activities in a state through an independent contractor. The statute expressly immunizes certain, but only certain, activities. … In fact, by specifying certain activities that will not cause loss of immunity, the statute clearly implies that some independent contractor activities will result in loss of immunity.

Castle Sawmills, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 571 · Oregon Tax Court · May 4, 1964

Defendant established a method of apportionment by rules and regulations implementing ORS 317.180. STC Reg 7.180. … Its income is not immunized from Oregon excise taxation by Spector. Its intangible income is subject to excise taxation at plaintiff’s domicile in Oregon.

Jonsson v. Department of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 537 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 30, 1971

Tax Commission, supra, and the other eases cited above clearly establish that although the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution bars discrimination based solely upon residence, it does not preclude disparity … The order of the Department of Eevenue is sustained. ① “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Julian v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 384 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 11, 2004

from state taxation that Congress has not clearly expressed.” … The court is recognizing that simply moving goods in a truck does not qualify as a commercial activity.

Haldeman v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc-Md 070773c (or.tax 9-24-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 24, 2008

*Page 2 Plaintiff's "domestic partner" who qualified for the above health insurance benefits during 2006 is of the opposite sex. … During 2006, Plaintiff was not legally married to the individual who qualified for the domestic partner benefits. The exemption is claimed on the return by subtracting the "income."

Waldo Block Partners v. Motion for Summary Jud.

16 Or. Tax 33 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 18, 2002

The department contends that the statute’s legislative history clearly reflects an intent to update the assessed value of the property for purposes of the second 15-year special assessment period. … The constitution clearly anticipates that when the taxable status of property changes, either becoming disqualified for special assessment or becoming “newly eligible” for special assessment, a new MAV is established for

Hood River County v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 292 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 19, 1995

In this case, county contends that the department is obligated to establish the absence of any significant differences. … The court finds that assessment of ad valorem taxes against the federal lessee violates the constitutional principle of intergovernmental immunity.

Roseburg Lumber Co. v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 323 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1968

. *325 denied, 385 US 830 (1966), to support its findings that plaintiff is not an importer entitled to immunity from taxation under the United States Constitution. … The evidence established that under normal conditions Lauan veneer could be supplied from the Philippine Islands in not to exceed three months, and birch veneer from Canada in not to exceed two months.

Perkins v. Department of Revenue

15 Or. Tax 381 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 19, 2001

The legislature clearly intended that if ownership or use changes, the organization must file a new statement. … The court believes it is clearly a situation where the assessor failed to timely disqualify property from exemption.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 549 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 2021

On the other hand, the court should not admit expert testimony if the finder of fact “clearly is equally qualified [to determine the facts] with- out help from opinion testimony.” Yundt, 259 Or at 259. … In the “area between the clearly qualified [trier of fact] and the clearly unqualified [trier of fact],” the court has “a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opin- ion testimony.”

Atkinson v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 558 · Oregon Tax Court · May 11, 1964

Some words frequently used in statutes are inherently ambiguous because the legislature is establishing a standard which will vary with the facts of each case. “Primarily engaged” are such words. … Using this definition, plaintiff is entitled to its claimed offset because its qualifying business in Oregon is clearly substantial.

Hyundai Semiconductor America v. City of Eugene

14 Or. Tax 557 · Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 1999

Each of the Defendants adopted a new resolution requiring qualified businesses to make a “public benefit contribution” of up to 15 percent of the tax exemption in order to qualify for the tax exemption. … Those conditions are clearly and directly related to accomplishing those purposes. ORS 285.577(4).