Case law

Cruthirds v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 9, 2016

Defendant’s conference officer determined that Stephen’s van qualified for the “exception to the strict documentary and substantiation requirements for a qualified nonpersonal use vehicle,” but concluded his truck was a … general purpose truck” and did not qualify for that exception.

Coos County Assessor v. Department of Revenue

18 Or. Tax 334 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 6, 2004

If that information, together with the information in the petition and that provided by the county in response to the department’s request form, clearly established that the requirements of the statute and rule were met, … As for the representation issue, Carmichael filed the petition and he is a qualified representative under ORS 305.230.

Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 155 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 7, 2018

Although this right to information is limited in scope, the court concludes that the department clearly vio- lated it in this case. … To qualify for injunctive relief, the claimant must demonstrate that there is a cognizable threat of continuing harm stemming from conduct that is probable or threat- ened. Eagles Five, LLC v.

St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church, Astoria v. Clatsop County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 6, 2015

ANALYSIS The issue in this case is whether the subject property, a church rectory, qualifies for exemption under ORS 307.140. A. … However, in that case, the facts were clearly distinguishable. There, “[t]he main living room [wa]s used for meetings and for counseling individuals and families an average of three to four times a week.

Hays v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 9, 2017

Plaintiff’s only other discernable argument is that he is “clearly not the specific ‘person’ who is plainly and clearly made liable by the written statutes of Title 26 United States Code for the payment of the federal personal … Nothing in the documents presented to the court indicates that he qualified for deductions sufficient to reduce his gross income by more than $35,000.

O'Neill v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 13, 2012

In order for this court to find that Defendant abused its discretion, there must be evidence that Defendant “acted capriciously or arrived at a conclusion which was clearly wrong.” Eyler v. … DECISION TC-MD 110957D 3 or tax collector notify a taxpayer that the deadline to qualify for the three percent discount has passed

Niemela v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · May 2, 2019

This was clearly not the intent of the 2000 law. … No evidence was presented at trial to establish the metropolitan area where Niemela works and lives.

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

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 23, 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

Portland Adventist Hospital v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 342 · Oregon Tax Court · May 6, 1980

Both of the appraisers are able, experienced men, and are well qualified as expert witnesses. … The evidence in the record clearly and convincingly refutes any assumption, never founded by defendant on any evidence, that the rent of plaintiffs tenants was subsidized and thus below market.

Weston v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 7, 2016

Plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of the evidence. Feves v. Dept. of Revenue., 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). … Alternatively, Plaintiff maintains that he qualifies for the first circumstance in Revenue Ruling 99-7. (Id. at 4.)

Walwyn v. Lane County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 27, 2014

Even accepting Defendant’s contention that its records did not include a sketch or description of the garage, that is not sufficient to establish that the garage was omitted. See, e.g., Fox v. … In Miller, the barn at issue “was assessed at one time in the 1980s” and, for reasons that were not clearly explained, “the barn was not on the assessment roll or assessed for the tax years 1995-96 through 1999-2000.”

Ferrington v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 28, 2014

Plaintiff has not sought to establish, nor has she established, a home office or principal place of business under IRC § 280A(c)(1). … Although most of Plaintiff’s meal receipts clearly show the date, time, place, and amount of the charge, a large number of the meal receipts either omit any stated qualifying business purpose or bear unexplained hand-written

Bradfute v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 27, 2020

Plaintiff worked in the Portland area 100 percent of the time for DECISION TC-MD 180370G 4 of 10 seven years before the year at issue; clearly, … Work that is indefinite or indeterminate does not qualify for the exception to the general rule against deducting commuting expenses. Peurifoy v.

Health Net, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 128 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 9, 2015

FACTS The relevant facts have been established through stipulation, including stipulated exhibits. For the years at issue, those facts are as follows. … (3) The ICPC has terms that are much more clearly contractual than those in the Compact. Consideration is also clearly present in the form of a requirement of two years advance notice before withdrawal.

Serenity Lane v. Lane County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 7, 2012

An organization that is established primarily for the benefit of its members, is not a qualifying charity.” … At best, the survey establishes the price difference between Serenity and other treatment centers.

Spyglass Court of Oregon LTD. v. Lincoln County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 2013

The Department’s conference officer found that the subject property “is a low income housing apartment qualifying under the Internal Revenue Code Section 42 rural development 515.” (Ptf’s Am Compl at 4.) … The Oregon Supreme Court has stated: “Not always clearly stated, but clearly implied in our decisions, is the rationale that an amended pleading should be permitted to relate back if the defendant is

Dept. of Rev. v. Butte Creek Associates I

19 Or. Tax 1 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 20, 2006

Defendant (taxpayer) operates a low-income housing project built in 1990, located in Jackson County (the county), and qualifying for the benefits of section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and section 515 of the Federal Housing … The comparable sales relied on by Arrasmith were preservation transfers of the type described in Piedmont Plaza I, in which this court held that a "preservation transfer is clearly not open market value and is not a comparable

Hannah v. Washington County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 25, 2016

However, as the party seeking relief, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof and must establish her case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. … Whether Plaintiff Meets the Qualifications for Homestead Deferral The Department argues that Plaintiff no longer qualifies for Homestead Deferral under ORS 311.668(1)(c).

Lawson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 29, 2016

ORS 316.007(1).3 “Any 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 required … Plaintiff must establish her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which “means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).

Commons at Cedar Mill, LLC v. Washington County Assessor and Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 24, 2018

In 2001, the legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2204, which established a new taxation regime for low-income housing projects, which would apply at the option of the property owner. … As described above, ORS 308.704 clearly states that a property owner may choose whether to participate in the low income housing special assessment program.