Case law

La Pointe's, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 512 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 7, 1971

The statute cannot intend such a result and the department’s regulation does not clearly require it. … This substitute, in and of itself, carries no guarantee that true cash value will be established. The defendant’s Orders No.

Firestenberg v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2025

Plaintiff’s claim that she is a nonresident alien with wages unrelated to the U.S. is not objectively reasonable and is clearly frivolous for the reasons set forth earlier in this Decision. … Department of Revenue, TC-MD 170396G, 2018 WL 3808557 *1 (Or Tax M Div, Aug 6, 2018), taxpayer asserted “money received from private employers did not qualify as ‘wages’ under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and was therefore

Tone v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 24, 2017

Plaintiff is allowed a deduction based on those expenses. 14 Plaintiff’s home office does not qualify as a regular business establishment because it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed … Mere “goodwill” entertainment is insufficient to qualify for a deduction.

Avery v. Clackamas County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 2013

Regardless, Bunick’s knowledge and experience in real estate development was convincingly established at trial. … The court has already stated that it finds Bunick qualified to render opinions about property development.

Finley v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 15, 2012

Focus ORS 316.587(8)(b) does not specifically require the prior year‟s return to be timely filed in order to qualify for safe harbor. … Clearly, subsection (8) does not expressly require that the prior year‟s return be timely filed.

Drentlaw v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 12, 2019

A home office maintained purely for the “personal convenience, comfort, or economy” of the employee does not qualify. Id. (citations omitted). … Although the letter from T & T does not clearly resolve the question, other evidence supports that finding.

Robinson v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 091455c (or.tax 6-10-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 10, 2011

Plaintiff's appraisal witnesses were certainly qualified, but their conclusions simply not credible. … In closing, although not clearly stated, it appears that Plaintiff spent close to $500,000 building the house (and perhaps the barn and other outbuildings), plus the railroad. That work was all done on or before 2001.

Universal EDI Corp. v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · May 21, 2013

Roode testified that Plaintiff “qualifies for a section 119 lodging deduction.” … It is well established by case law that a cash method taxpayer cannot pay an amount by executing a note. See e.g., Baltimore Dairy Lunch v.

Acker v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 10, 2012

314.011(2)(a) states that “[a]ny term [used in this chapter] has the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes, unless a different meaning is clearly … The aforementioned IRC sections do not establish an April 15 filing due date.

Boquist v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 263 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 21, 2019

Rather than break this connection to federal tax- able income, SB 1528 establishes an “addition” to federal tax- able income. … Oregon does not impose its tax on the amount deducted under Section 199A(a), the corresponding addback amount under SB 1528, or even on “qualified business income” as used in Section 199A(a).

Wynne v. Lincoln County Assessor, Tc-Md 080231c (or.tax 10-16-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 16, 2009

ORS 308.007 (1)(a), (2). 2 Because this matter was heard under the *Page 5 provisions of ORS 305.288 (1) (2007), the court cannot order a reduction in RMV unless Plaintiff satisfactorily establishes an error in value of at … Plaintiff clearly has not shown the 20 percent error required by ORS 305.288 (1) (2007). Accordingly, Plaintiffs appeal is denied.

Khalaf v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 1 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 5, 2020

See National Can Corp., 520 F Supp at 579 (“[T]here can be an expense which will qualify as a tax deduction where all other requirements are satis- fied, if there is payment in kind or in the equivalent of cash.” … dealer that temporar- ily withdraws certain vehicles from its inventory to use as “demonstration” vehicles meant to stimulate future sales cannot then claim depreciation deductions on those vehi- cles unless the evidence clearly

Garcia v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 3, 2020

Bank Deposit Analysis “Where a taxpayer’s books do not clearly reflect income, the Department of Revenue may demonstrate unreported income ‘by any practicable proof that is available in the circumstances of the … Reduction of Business Expenses Under IRC Section 265 IRC section 131(a) excludes from gross income “amounts received by a foster care provider * * * as qualified foster care payments.”

Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 19 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 14, 1979

This can be clearly illustrated by reference to the 1976 edition of the Yearbook of Railroad Facts, published by the Association of American Railroads. … Whether such testimony is admissible has not been clearly decided. See McCormick, Law of Evidence (West 1954), "Expert’s Opinion Based on Reports of Others,” 32-33, and cases cited therein; Reid v.

Ooma, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 48 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 2, 2020

ongoing, but readily terminable, service relationship with customers in Oregon, taxpayer may no longer rely on its nationwide sales and marketing efforts for immunity from tax even if, as taxpayer contends, those efforts … The Court held that these thresholds showed a “clearly sufficient” nexus. Id.

Strawn v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 98 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 6, 1962

established. … Clear and Convincing Evidence: Appeal of Kliks Appeal of Kliks, supra, clearly established the presumption of assessment validity upon sound reason and logic.

Bossard v. Dept. of Rev. (TC-MD 190283R)

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 17, 2020

Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under IRC section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Reese v. … Had Plaintiff timely filed his return, he might have been entitled to a refund of some portion of the amounts withheld but not the entire amount. 6 Plaintiff’s state of mind is clearly shown by his deliberate act of filing

Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 22, 2023

With respect to the Uniformity Clauses, the Department correctly points out that all the cases Taxpayer cited were factually distinguishable, and Taxpayer cited them mainly to establish the test. … In Notice 95–34 the IRS provided guidance on the tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements in seeking to qualify for exemption from section 419.

Ashby v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090511c (or.tax 5-5-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 2011

"The law is also clear that once domicile is established or determined to be in a particular location, it remains there until the person establishes a new domicile." Duncan v. … Plaintiff's second argument is more clearly articulated, but misses the mark on the facts before the court.

Smith v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 22, 2025

Gross income includes “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Comm’r v. … Plaintiff’s interpretation of IRC sections 3401(c) and 3121(a) as excluding private employment is also contrary to established federal law. See Muhammad v.