Case law

Lamka v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 10, 2018

Adjusted Gross Income Taxpayers must keep records sufficient to establish the income, deductions, credits, and other items shown on their returns. Treas Reg § 1.6001–1(a); Brenner v. Dept. of Rev. … Where the taxpayer does not provide books clearly reflecting income, the department may demonstrate unreported income “by any practicable proof that is available in the circumstances of the particular situation.”

Robles v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 6, 2012

However, Plaintiffs provided substantiation including receipts for Hugo‘s lodging and meals (establishing the dates and amounts of expenditures) and Hugo‘s credible testimony (establishing the business purpose of expenditures … Some receipts do not state a location and do not clearly relate to any of Hugo‘s business trips. (Id. at 58, 68, and 81.)

Stout Living Trust v. Lane County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 18, 2012

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.3 A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” … The court did not receive any evidence clearly identifying how the 2010-11 exception value of $63,950 was determined or whether it included new improvements to the subject property properly added to the 2010-11 maximum

Marcum v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 25, 2016

ORS 316.007(1).1 “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 … However, a “taxpayer’s costs of commuting to his place of business or employment are personal expenses and do not qualify as deductible expenses.” Treas Reg 1.262-1(b)(5).

Schmidt v. Harney County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 2, 2015

By statute, Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish an error in the record assessment by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427. … On the contrary, Defendant’s appraiser clearly indicates that the “effective date of the appraisal” is May 6, 2015. (Def’s Ex A at 1, 7, 41.)

Evergreen Agricultural Enterprises v. Yamhill County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 16, 2011

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.2 A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” … The assessor could therefore reasonably limit the scope of his inspection to discerning whether the information contained in [the] taxpayer‟s records clearly conflicted with the observed circumstances of the

Mater Investment Company v. Benton County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 24, 2016

Property Tax Exemption The issue presented is whether the subject property lease to Greenbelt qualifies for property tax exemption under ORS 307.112 for the 2014-15 tax year. … rate data of that property; “(c) Rental rate used in a real market value appraisal for that property; “(d) Rent study of comparable or similar properties. “(9) The savings must be clearly

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.

Boothroyd v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 9, 2018

Even if an entertainment expense qualifies under IRC section 274(a), it must also meet the strict substantiation requirements under IRC section 274(d). … He also failed to provide any receipts or similar documents establishing his cost basis in any of the stolen items.

Briesmeister v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 19, 2019

ORS 316.007(1).2 In general, terms have “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 or the term … A sporadic activity, a hobby, or an amusement diversion does not qualify.” Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 480 US 23, 35, 107 S Ct 980, 94 L Ed 2d 25 (1987).

Harris v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 4, 2017

“Based upon a conversation I had with [Harris] regarding the expenses in question, the expenses for entertaining business customers would have certainly qualified for reimbursement assuming that they had been … Plaintiffs must establish their 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).

Weber v. Lane County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 27, 2016

cleaner was qualified to render an opinion as to the FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150195C 13 condition of the roof. … In discussing OEC 307, which addresses the burden of production, Kirkpatrick states that “Rule 307 clearly distinguishes the burden of producing evidence from the burden of persuasion covered by Rule 305.”4 Kirkpatrick

Shadbolt v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 22, 2019

The shareholder bears the burden of establishing his or her basis.” Broz v. Comm’r, 137 TC 46, 60 (2011). … Now, therefore, 18 This exception is, in turn, subject to another exception allowing a deduction for “qualified residence interest” on certain homes, which is not at issue here.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.

Danielson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 7, 2017

Here, the vehicles for which DCI made purchases at Les Schwab included both “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” and passenger automobiles. … Plaintiffs did not provide a depreciation schedule or other information sufficient to establish any entitlement to a deduction under IRC section 167.

Winn v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 29, 2019

ORS 316.007(1).9 In general, terms have “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 or the term … Items that may have qualified as repairs became part of a larger plan to improve the basement unit. The expenses Plaintiff incurred in 2013 for the basement unit must be capitalized.

Linstrom v. Lincoln County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 16, 2018

It is not buildable and does not qualify for a septic permit. (Ptf’s Ex 8 at 1.) … On the one hand, the subject property deeds clearly state that the property boundary extends only to the high water line.11 That supports Defendant’s view that Plaintiff knew what he bought when he bought it.

Gray v. Linn County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 9, 2018

For purposes of the state cost factors, Tracy determined the pole barn’s construction quality and design features—such as its concrete slab floor—qualified it as a class 5 general purpose building. … While Defendant did not establish that its trending was correct, the burden of proving a change to the tax roll falls on /// FINAL DECISION TC-MD 170092G

Rogers v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 20, 2016

Looking at the guidelines in the federal regulations for the nine factors set out above, Plaintiffs clearly meet the second and third factors, do not appear to satisfy the first, sixth, or seventh, and may or may not satisfy … That said, the court need not determine whether Plaintiffs qualify under IRC section 183 because they have failed to provide any evidence, documentary or testimonial, pertaining to the claimed expenses.