Case law

Estee Lauder Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 279 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 30, 2000

The printed order forms clearly stated that Service Corporations “does not bind Manufacturing Corporations to the filing of any order.” … See Wrigley, 505 US at 232, 235 (defining “de minimis” as an activity that “establishes a nontrivial connection with the *291 taxing State”).

Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 305 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 21, 1992

Particularly was this true in relation to the establishment of hospitals, which, under frontier conditions, were greatly needed, and public policy encouraged their establishment by exempting their property from taxation where … they could, even in a slight degree, qualify as charitable institutions.

The Ash Organization v. City of Wilsonville

14 Or. Tax 362 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 31, 1998

Clearly, there has not been a reduction in property taxes attributable to roads. Plaintiff contends that its Exhibit 3 demonstrates that the road fund was reduced. … The court finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes there was no property tax reduction allocated to roads.

Spang v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 166 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 4, 1999

ANALYSIS Oregon law exempts the income of certain qualifying American Indians from state income tax. … Plaintiff clearly does not live on land set aside for the residence of tribal Indians under federal protection, as required by the state’s administrative rule (OAR 150-316.777(2)), as set out above.

Jayne v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 65 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 22, 1965

However, the instant case so clearly points up the statutory construction problems presented that a discussion of both issues will clarify the decision in each. … The rules themselves establish this conclusion. Read together they are contradictory and confusing.

Department of Revenue v. Clark

17 Or. Tax 218 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 6, 2003

Taxpayer has no common-law immunity, because his liability for income tax, or exemption therefrom, is entirely a matter of statute. … satisfied on facts submitted by taxpayer. 7 This discussion relates only to taxpayer’s particular situation and is not intended to suggest that the department must establish a basis for rejecting any particular withholding

Davis v. Department of Revenue

9 Or. Tax 465 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 9, 1984

ORS 314.407, establishing the time of assessment of income taxes, uses the term “due date of the return” in subsection (1) and in subsection (2)(c) and qualifies it as follows: “[T]he due date of the return (determined with … The evidence does not support a finding that a different meaning is clearly required in construing ORS 316.192.

Girardet v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 44 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 9, 1994

While some of the unconditional uses are clearly nonfarm uses, such as churches and schools, others are typically considered a farm use. ORS 215.213(f). … The court finds that the subject land qualifies for farm use. The building on the land qualifies as “a winery, as described in ORS 215.452.” ORS 215.213(1)(t). In Craven v.

Society of St. Vincent DePaul v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 47 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 16, 1996

To succeed on a claim of estoppel, taxpayer must establish: “(1) misleading conduct, (2) good faith reliance on that conduct, and (3) injury to the party claiming estoppel.” Sayles v. … Clearly this situation does not call for estoppel. Taxpayer’s pleas do not fall on deaf ears. It is a charitable organization and the property would have qualified if taxpayer had filed the application timely.

State Ex Rel Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Wilcox

10 Or. Tax 181 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 11, 1985

Petitioner believes that the property used by the hospital laboratories does not qualify for property tax exemption because of the laboratories’ outside work. … Knowing that exemptions are strictly construed and that those who seek to have their property exempt must clearly bring themselves within the exemption and, further, that the party claiming exemption has the burden of proof

Tucker v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 080902d (or.tax 1-14-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 14, 2009

Evans wrote that "it is clearly the county assessor's responsibility to review all `relevant evidence' to determine if the land is properly classifiable as forestland." (Def's Statement of Facts at 2.) … When the legislature enacted the special assessment of western Oregon forestland, the program was established "as a means of: "(a) Recognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 212 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 9, 1997

As amended, the taxpayer no longer qualified for the deduction. The taxpayer contended that such a retroactive change in the law violated the due process requirements. … The court also noted that Congress acted promptly and established only “a modest period of retroactivity.” Id. at 29 .

Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 466 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 17, 1980

"The Committee believes that the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is eminently qualified to assume this task [of study and preparation of recommendations to Congress] since the Commission members include … Tax Commission, 392 US 339 , 88 S Ct 2173 , 20 L Ed2d 1138 (1968), in which he wrote that the fact that institutions owe their existence to (are chartered by) the federal government must be rejected as a basis for tax immunity

Power Rents LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 486 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 30, 2021

The mere fact that the legis- lature has chosen to set express deadlines that apply after the start of the tax year in some circumstances is not suf- ficient to establish that the legislature has done so here by implication … Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 94 (1991).8 Taxpayer responds that ORS 307.872(3) clearly states that the Property was exempt for the period January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019, because the only conditions 7

Nicolynn Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 320 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 30, 2013

The May 1, 2012, notice also clearly set forth the appeal time applicable to the adverse action. 3 The court’s reference to requirements prior to the date of notice addresses several arguments of taxpayer regarding … Taxpayer asserts that the record does not establish when this occurred. 4 The rule does not establish, as a matter of fact, when the roll was actu- ally corrected.

Parkhurst v. Dept. of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 586 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 15, 1971

The Director of the Department of Revenue concluded that all of the corporation’s property qualified for exemption from taxation under ORS 307.130 and ORS 307.140. … Furthermore, the program itself does not qualify as education under the exemption statute.

Cortez v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 070754c (or.tax 2-14-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 14, 2008

The statute provides in relevant part: *Page 3 "A qualified taxpayer shall be allowed a credit against the taxes otherwise due under ORS chapter 316 equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified taxpayer's child care … Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 .

Prestidge v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 386 · Oregon Tax Court · May 13, 2014

As provided for in the trust instrument, three trusts were then established. … The QTIP Trust was designed to qualify under federal estate tax law as vesting in Mifflin an interest of such magnitude that the transfer would qualify for the marital deduction in computing the federal estate tax liability

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 420 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 25, 1966

Plaintiff, however, would use the formula established by OES 317.095. … But these general rules are qualified with the words and phrases “generally,” “however,” “in some instances,” and “in most instances.”

First National Bank v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 209 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 24, 1975

The general principle is well established that the rights of parties under an inheritance tax statute are determined as of the date of the death of the decedent without any power of the legatees by their acts to affect [sic … One must conclude that the situation presented in the present case is not clearly adverted to by the provisions of ORS 118.005 et seq., and the determination of the question before the court must be based on general principles