Case law

Merkle v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 283 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1965

The facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in our case. … by the appraisers) for the purpose of establishing the adjusted basis.

Farms v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100443d (or.tax 10-13-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 13, 2011

The equipment used in such harvesting qualifies for the exemption. … However, ORS 307.394 does not include a *Page 14 requirement that farm machinery and equipment used in harvesting be directly related or reasonably necessary to the harvesting process. 6 Case law clearly establishes that

Zmation, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 17, 2022

It claimed six qualified projects in 2016 and eight qualified projects in 2017. (Id.) … But those emails and notes do not clearly demonstrate a systematic method of trial and error capable of evaluating more than one alternative, rather than simple trial and error.

Pearce v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100892c (or.tax 10-31-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 31, 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs own rental properties that qualify for depreciation deductions under federal and Oregon law. (Ptfs' Compl at 4-5.) … In the instant case, Plaintiffs' 2004 cost segregation established the basis for their continued reporting of depreciation in 2006 and 2007.

Fidler v. Deschutes County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 8, 2025

The enterprise zone exemption is authorized by ORS 285C.175 for qualified properties of qualifying business firms. … That statute clearly establishes a notice requirement and a right of appeal when a property is denied an enterprise zone exemption: “The county assessor shall notify the business firm in writing whenever

Mitchell Bros. Terminal Co. v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 141 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 30, 1972

This regulation clearly treats the assumption of liability by the taxpayer’s transferee as money received by the taxpayer, whether the property qualifies within § 1031(a) or is nonqualifying under § 1031(b) of the Int Rev … The court must follow this long-established regulation. No case has been cited authorizing any other treatment under the facts of this case.

Webb v. Dept. of Rev.

19 Or. Tax 20 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 27, 2006

Donna also testified that, had she been asked by which date the department would have to receive a return for tax year 2001, with an extension, in order for the taxpayer to qualify for a refund, the answer would be April … The court recognizes the possibility that taxpayer did phrase her question clearly, thoroughly, and specifically in the 2004 phone call.

Williams v. Columbia County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 10, 2025

Bona Fide Purchaser; Public Record of Potential Additional Tax Plaintiffs argue that the additional tax should not be imposed because Defendant established a precedent of not collecting back taxes from before Plaintiffs … To DECISION TC-MD 250397N 6 establish misleading conduct requires “proof positive that the [county] has misinformed the individual taxpayer

Brice v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 548 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1976

The parties agreed that the Beverly Beach Water District qualified as such. See ORS chapter 264. … It was essential to him to keep the water available for the subdivision and he benefited by having the water reservoir there. * * *” The testimony in this case clearly shows that the relationship between the water district

Comcast Corp. III v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 4909)

22 Or. Tax 233 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 15, 2016

ANALYSIS As already discussed, the department’s assess- ment clearly exceeds the 3% Limit because the department increased the MAV for taxpayer’s properties by over 130 per- cent. … Real property is clearly prop- erty that can only be added to a tax account as a result of an acquisition by a taxpayer. This leaves only the general catchall of “other taxable * * * personal property.”

Seaside Investments LLC v. Clatsop County Assessor

21 Or. Tax 136 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 28, 2013

Clatsop County Assessor and Defendant-Intervenor Department of Revenue (collectively referred to in this opinion as “the department”) concluded that continued “use of each of the 70 legally distinct condos as a condo hotel is clearly … Further, taxpayer’s expert did not attempt to quantify any element of business value, testifying at one point that he was not qualified to do so.

Hynix Semicond. Mfg. v. Lane County Assr., Tc-Md 091320b (or.tax 5-5-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 2011

Hynix asserts that it is reasonable that a taxpayer could not have a loss of exemption in the third year, at least after establishing the "number of employees" on April 1 or when the claim is filed. *Page 10 a. … But closure of operations does mean the ending of the activity, as Webster's clearly points out." ( Id. at 3, 4.)

Hynix Semiconductor v. Lane Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 091320b (or.tax 5-12-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 12, 2011

Hynix asserts that it is reasonable that a taxpayer could not have a loss of exemption in the third year, at least after establishing the "number of employees" on April 1 or when the claim is filed. *Page 10 a. … But closure of operations does mean the ending of the activity, as Webster's clearly points out." ( Id. at 3, 4.)

Beaver Ventures LLC v. Washington County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 27, 2026

The department promulgated a rule requiring separate claim forms for separate authorizations and clearly stated that requirement in its form instructions. … Nor can the court permit Plaintiff to correct its failure to file a claim on appeal because ORS 285C.220 establishes claim filing deadlines.

Western Generation Agency v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 141 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 13, 1997

WGA claims that it qualifies as a municipal corporation for purposes of ORS 307.090(1). … The purpose of ORS 33.710 is to provide a process to establish the validity of a local governmental organization.

Murray v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101018b (or.tax 8-23-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2011

Cole also testified that Plaintiffs have not claimed to qualify for the dependent care assistance programs and that, even if they did qualify, the amount of pre-tax income allowed would be limited to 25 percent. … Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that *Page 15 Plaintiffs' tax year 2009 income is other than the amount reported by Plaintiffs and has, therefore, failed to meet the burden of proof. C.

Columbia River Gorge Resort LLC v. Wasco County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 5, 2016

The only issue is whether the subject property qualifies under subpart (a). … However, ORS 305.288(1)(a) specifies that only specific types of dwellings qualify. B.

First Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 24, 2024

When interpreting a statute, the court follows the framework established in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P3d 1042 (2009); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. … Additionally, Plaintiff is clearly not a first-time filer or a public entity.

Parsons v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 23, 2020

Plaintiff, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bears the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. … Comm’r, 105 TCM (CCH) 1733, 2013 WL 1953732 (US Tax Ct), the taxpayers “bought a piece of raw land in wine country” intending to establish a vineyard.

Russell v. Department of Revenue

19 Or. Tax 228 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 3, 2007

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has clearly stated that "[t]he question of the amount of [gambling] losses sustained by a taxpayer is a question of fact to be determined from the facts of each case, established by the … In Norgaard , the Ninth Circuit stated that, "[i]n order to qualify for the estimation treatment under Cohan , the taxpayer must establish that he is entitled to some deduction."