Case law

Mary Kay, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 91 · Oregon Tax Court · May 15, 2003

Taxpayer establishes all of the eligibility criteria for participation in the Career Car Program, including initial and ongoing production standards. … Not only is taxpayer the only party to the Guaranty Agreement other than ARI, but the phrase “its Independent Sales Directors” clearly refers to taxpayer’s Consultants.

Tharalson v. St. of Ore. and Dept. of Rev.

6 Or. Tax 533 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 27, 1976

They also seek recovery of taxes paid to the State of Oregon as a result of the operation of ORS 118.095. ① Plaintiff Eric Tharalson is the trustee of the testamentary trust established by the will of Agnes E. … Plaintiffs have not alleged specifically in their complaint whether the statute violates the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Perron v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 091421d (or.tax 6-6-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 6, 2011

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." 939 F2d at 879 , citing Edelson v.

City of Woodburn v. Domogalla

1 Or. Tax 292 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 1963

While these cases are not on all fours with the instant case, they are quite close enough to establish clearly that the extension of a tax levy is a ministerial act and that mandamus will lie to require an assessor to extend … By the Oregon Tax Court Act, the legislature has established a new and separate tax court.

Rivera v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 2020

ORS 316.116(5) sets forth requirements “to qualify for a credit under this section.” … Parties’ Arguments Plaintiffs argue that ORS 316.116 “clearly states that the tax credit is allowable up to five years from issue date[.]” (See Compl, Ex 1 at 1-2.)

Barott v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 2013

Tax Court determined that the taxpayer’s jeep was not a “qualified nonpersonal use vehicle” similar to the following “specialized-use vehicles”: “clearly marked police and fire vehicles, ambulances, hearses, vehicles … leased by the person operating such establishment.

Cai v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100205d (or.tax 1-11-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 11, 2011

Unfortunately, Plaintiff's repair/replacement bids were more than 18 months after the assessment date and did not clearly state whether the bids were to cure the problem or replace the siding. … Even though Plaintiff is familiar with his property, he did not qualify himself as an expert on valuation.

New Beginnings Christian Center Inc v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 13, 2014

Brutke was an appeal from a disqualification during which the plaintiffs provided additional information establishing that their property qualified for special assessment. … The subject property qualified for exemption under ORS 307.140 in tax year 2006, and remained qualified throughout the years at issue.

Cooke v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 3, 2014

The ledgers clearly identify the “time in,” “time out,” “hours,” and “total” for each day that child care was provided. (Id.) Weekly payments are identified by the amount and the notation “Pd.” (Id.) … Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 280 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 14, 1989

Issue The differing views of the parties clearly delineates the issue in this case. Plaintiff maintains that its activities in Washington constitute the “sale of tangible personal property.” … However, it does affirm that if plaintiffs activities do qualify as sales of tangible personal property, its income must be apportioned to Washington.

Vaninetti v. Jackson County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 8, 2012

The analysis of whether farmland qualifies for special assessment, and, in turn, how qualified land may be disqualified depends on whether the farmland is “exclusive farm use zone farmland” or “nonexclusive farm use zone … The July photographs clearly show the subject property tilled and clear of grass. Defendant‟s contemporaneous photographs of the subject property show the property lying fallow.

Oregon Bank v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 291 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 6, 1980

Henry qualified as an expert property appraiser, presenting a record of six years of employment with the Department of Assessment and Taxation, Multnomah County, Oregon, where he specialized in commercial-industrial appraisals … The court does not reject the possibility of proof of functional obsolescence, once the bank has had a sufficient history of use and data are collected which clearly demonstrate the quantum of economic loss in efficiency

Cecil V. Stutzman Estate v. Yamhill County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 21, 2013

He testified that, during that conversation, he asked Roberta “about the motorcycle tracks that could be clearly seen in the 2012 aerial [photograph]. … DECISION TC-MD 120781N 6  Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

American Condominium Homes, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 103 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 16, 1975

On this aspect of plaintiffs’ argument, “[t]he well-established and necessary doctrine that each tax year ‘stands on its own feet’ is applicable * * See State Finance Co. et al v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 651, 659 (1974). … The defendant’s power to make rules and regulations and to prescribe forms is clearly provided by statute. OES 305.100.

Schytz v. Yamhill County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 1, 2024

Payment of two-thirds of the tax qualifies for a two percent discount. ORS 311.505(3)(a). Payment of the full amount due on or before November 15 qualifies for a three percent discount. ORS 311.505(3)(b). … The court finds that Defendant’s determination is not capricious or clearly wrong.

Wilson Whitney v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 30, 2012

Defendant filed an Answer disagreeing that Plaintiff qualified for innocent spouse relief. … If the following four conditions are met, the individual will qualify for innocent spouse relief.

Oregon Research Institute, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 433 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 25, 1971

The court finds plaintiff qualified as a scientific institution entitled to property tax exemption under ORS 307.130 as to real or personal property “owned or being purchased” by it. 2. … For the court to hold that the plaintiff was “purchasing” the subject property would be a decision based upon mere speculation and not the facts established before the court.

Gill v. Beaverton School District 48

14 Or. Tax 25 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 19, 1996

“It is an unusual case in which the text and context of a constitutional provision reflect the intent of the voters so clearly that no alternative reading of the provision is possible. … The legislature was correct in finding that the phrase “capital construction and improvements” does not have an established legal meaning.

Tillamook Lodging LPI v. Tillamook County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 18, 2025

Payment of the full amount due on or before November 15 qualifies for a three percent discount. … The court sees no reason to conclude that Defendant’s action was clearly wrong or capricious.

Wilsonville Heights Assoc., Ltd. v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 139 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 7, 2003

First, the interest of the federal government is in having affordable housing, available to persons who qualify as tenants under the government program. … The reference to “contract” is clearly a reference to the regulatory agreement between the developer and the government and related debt instruments.