Case law

Rosalie Ridge LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 434 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2014

But in order to establish this predominant purpose, the county relies almost exclusively on the period following the transfer of the subject property from Lillian Logan to taxpayer. … The court heard testimony at trial from Daniel Logan and from Ken Everett, another witness qualified as an expert in forestry.

Medical Building Land Co. v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 119 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 29, 1977

On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Board of Equalization for Multnomah County established the assessed value at $3,368,660, of which $168,660 was attributed to the land and $3,200,000 to the improvements. … Each of these able, experienced men clearly qualified as an expert.

Ev. Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 14 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 10, 1972

they could, even in a slight degree, qualify as charitable institutions. … With all the other criteria of a charitable corporation being fully met, it is concluded that the corporation’s status as a charitable institution in 1970 is clearly established.

Patton v. Department of Revenue

18 Or. Tax 111 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 21, 2005

Moreover, taxpayer does not assert facts establishing that any governmental official at any time suggested that receipt of a property tax *123 bill, in any amount, meant his property was WOSTOT qualified. … First, no statutory or case law supports that legal position; rather, the WOSTOT regime clearly treats separate parcels separately — it does not link times of purchase, times of application for classification, classification

Palafox v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101263b (or.tax 10-25-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 25, 2011

Derickson testified that Plaintiffs did not provide birth certificates to establish that a qualifying relationship exists. … In order to prevail, Plaintiffs must establish all the elements of their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Barnum v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 508 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 1974

Subsequently, the mother and daughter established a close personal relationship long after the adoptive parents had died. … "What is needed is not a reiteration of established principles but rather a definition of “unambiguous” for application in the present case.

United Streetcar, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 418 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 11, 2019

The Enterprise Zone Act clearly authorizes the firm and the zone sponsor to agree to “any additional requirement the sponsor may reasonably require” as a condition of the addi- tional one or two years of exemption. … The court interprets these provisions as establishing a per-employee test, i.e., the statutes require that each employee whom the firm wishes to count toward the minimum requirement must work a majority of the employee’s

Nah-Dzul v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101237c (or.tax 12-1-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 1, 2011

IRC section 152 (a) defines a dependant as either "(1) a qualifying *Page 5 child, or (2) a qualifying relative." … Defendant used the support and gross income tests to conclude that in order for a taxpayer to claim a qualifying relative as a dependent, the total amount of support used by the dependent for the year must be clearly quantified

Van Natta v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 215 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 26, 1995

For the first period in question, January-June 1991, the contract established a payment arrangement based upon a percentage split of gross receipts. … Taxpayers qualifying under ORS 321.282 calculate *217 their tax liability on the basis of net stumpage recovery.

Tektronix, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 338 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 21, 2001

ORS 315.304 “gives qualified taxpayers a tax credit for the cost of constructing certified pollution control facilities.” Smurfit, 329 Or at 593 . … This court held that: “[t]he fact that a statute may bar an assessment for taxes or a claim for refund after a certain period does not mean that the administrative agency or the courts must ignore the facts establishing the

Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 562 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 6, 2021

established.’ … Wayfair, 138 S Ct at 2099; see also Hellerstein, 2 State Taxation ¶ 19.02 n 142 (“Clearly, a virtual presence (in the modern sense of having a website) is not required to establish substantial nexus.

Gearin v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100664c (or.tax 5-27-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 27, 2011

If Plaintiff is now denied the disputed credits, neither parent will receive the benefit the state clearly intended to confer upon them as relatively low income wage earners with work-related child care expenses. II. … Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

Fred Messerle & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 413 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 29, 1980

majority of the bottom land soils on these ranches are classified type III or higher; IAG-10 may best suit the plaintiff’s "needs of our intended use and management *[419] for this land,” (see Def Ex A, 5th sheet), but it is clearly … Since we are incorporated, we do not qualify for reduced inheritance taxes.”

Oregon Stamp Society v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 190 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 21, 1963

NATURE OF EXEMPT CHARACTER The determination of the nature of the exempt character necessary to qualify for exemption requires interpretation of the broad language of the statute. … Rules of Interpretation The basic rules for such interpretation are established. Exemption statutes are to be strictly construed against the exemption.

Hiatt v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101271d (or.tax 6-15-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 15, 2011

Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev. , TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. … Defendant submitted receipts for items that clearly were personal and would not be allowable charitable donations.

Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board v. Department of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 410 · Oregon Tax Court · May 27, 1971

Tax Com., 239 Or 65, 69 , 396 P2d 212 (1964) (“* * * the rule of strict construction is established in Oregon tax law.”) … The plaintiff in that case clearly was an educational institution, eligible to claim exemption from taxation if its property came within the scope of ORS 307.130.

Wright v. Dept. of Rev.

19 Or. Tax 29 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 27, 2006

reasonably plausible, and because taxpayers have not presented the kinds of evidence described in OAR 150-305.820(2)(b), the court cannot hold that the department "acted capriciously or arrived at a conclusion which was clearly … As such, they could not be the basis of an estoppel claim, Welch, 314 Or at 717 -18 , even if they were less qualified and noncommittal than they are. *Page 37

Archer v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080508b (or.tax 4-23-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 23, 2009

The evidence establishes that, during 2007, Tilton was responsible for the health care needs of the children. Tilton did not claim any child care expenses on his 2007 Oregon income tax return. … The statute provides in relevant part: "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 expenses

Napier v. Lincoln County School District

4 Or. Tax 221 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1970

The funding of school buses, their maintenance and repair, clearly would come within this provision. … The budget committee consists of members of the governing body and a number of qualified electors. ORS 294.336.

Truckstop Skatepark v. Deschutes County, Tc-Md 101114d (or.tax 3-1-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 1, 2011

property owned, leased, subleased or being purchased by it; and "(b) It is expressly agreed within the lease, sublease or lease-purchase agreement that the rent payable by the institution, organization or public body has been established … ORS 307.140 clearly states that "any part of any house of public worship or other additional buildings or property which is kept or *Page 6 used as a store or shop or for any purpose other than those stated in this section