Case law

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 14, 2021

The trader agrees to an arrangement with a qualified broker (or the clearinghouse) to provide him with a margin deposit as required, and also agrees to reimburse him or accept credit for all interim gains … or losses in value of that futures contract resulting from day-to- day changes in its price on the floor of the established commodity exchange.

ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 22, 2020

For example, Plaintiff observes that the corporations composing its Parks and Resorts segment are clearly not broadcasters. … Plaintiff clearly engages in interstate broadcasting.

Davis v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 8, 2020

That increase in value—presumably at least partly due to Plaintiffs’ work irrigating, establishing new pastures, and otherwise operating the ranch—counterbalanced an increasing proportion of Plaintiffs’ yearly operating … It is immaterial whether Plaintiffs’ hope for profit was reasonable; their intent qualifies their ranching expenses as business expenses. See Treas Reg § 1.183–2(a). III.

Comcast Corp. II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265)

24 Or. Tax 250 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 25, 2020

The Court’s only post-Allied-Signal opinion to discuss the concept of “operational function” apportion- able income does not break new ground in the substantive issue here, but it clearly delineates the concepts that may … The department seems to argue that its adjustments to taxpayer’s carryforward deductions are immune from challenge by taxpayer because the department was at a procedural disadvantage until taxpayer sought to carry forward

Waldron v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 6, 2017

The letters from Axis do not clearly identify the year to which they pertain, but Waldron testified that he provided the logs to Sargent, who reviewed the logs and signed the letters. … 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).

Level 3 Communications LLC III v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 440 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 25, 2019

The former was generally considered an intangible right inseparable from the company itself, and the latter clearly was. … ORS 308.555 clearly authorizes the department to “value the entire property, both within and without the State of Oregon, as a unit.” (Emphasis added.)

Davidson v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 27, 2023

Part of the computation of the estimate the auditor made using county tax records was clearly in error because the date of assessment for the 2014-15 tax year is, by statute, January 1, 2014; meaning, the increase in value … Earned income credit (EIC) Defendant denied Plaintiffs’ 2015 deduction for EIC, in the amount of $289, on the basis that adjustments to their income rendered them no-longer-qualified for the credit under IRC section

Truett v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 13, 2018

MPI’s 2012 and 2013 Gross Receipts A taxpayer in Oregon must keep “such permanent books of account or records * * * as are sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters … Still, MPI was paying an expense it was obligated by its lease to pay, and that expense qualifies for a deduction under IRC section 162(a)(3).

Deras v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 6, 2026

From 1941 through 1983, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classified social security benefits as excluded from gross income, without a clearly stated legal theory. … ORS 316.148 (1985) allowed an income tax credit for certain expenses paid “in order that the qualified individual is not placed or maintained in a nursing home unnecessarily.”

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2023

See Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 55, 22 P3d 759 (2001) (stating standard with respect to equal privileges and immunities and equal protection analysis); Jarvill v.City of Eugene, 289 Or 157, 613 P2d … Other longstanding cases establish a difference in use as an additional kind of “genuine difference” for Uniformity Clause purposes.

PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 17, 2023

The only contemporaneous use of the full phrase “affirmative relief” in the Oregon Revised Statutes provided: “If a counterclaim established at the trial exceeds the plaintiff’s demand so established, … Defendant then qualifies this statement somewhat, stating that “certain of” Tegarden’s yields “are not year-end rates.” (Id. at 13 n 3.)