Case law

Martin v. City of Tigard

14 Or. Tax 517 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 17, 1999

The Supreme Court found that, in adopting section 11b, the voters did not intend to alter the well-established meaning of the term “local improvement.” … The above statute clearly makes ORS 305.580 the exclusive remedy and ORS 305.583 3 gives jurisdiction of that remedy to the Tax Court. There are no limitations or conditions in ORS 305.580.

Carl v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 347 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 10, 1976

He had never bought, sold or grown timber and did not consider himself a qualified timber cruiser (merely maldng estimates when required in conjunction with his farm appraisals). Mr. … The disastrous effect as to the subject property bottomlands was clearly *359 presented by competent witnesses and impressive exhibits. Mr.

Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 396 · Oregon Tax Court · May 15, 2014

A per- son’s domicile remains that person’s domicile until that per- son establishes a new domicile at a different location. Davis v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 260, 264 (1995). … Taxpayers have offered nothing that would permit the court to establish these elements for taxpayers’ cell phone usage.

Montessori School of Eugene, Inc. v. Lane County Assessor

16 Or. Tax 198 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 8, 2000

ANALYSIS There is no dispute that Plaintiff is a school which would be entitled, under ORS 307.145, to qualify for a property tax exemption. … Damage is clearly present in the approximately $27,000 in roll corrections which Defendant now seeks from Plaintiff. With those observations Plaintiffs case is complete.

Keller v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 381 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 23, 1993

Applying the pre-1951 law, the court in Keyes held that a Canadian gross income tax on dividends did not qualify as a “net income tax.” 209 Or at 662 . … But they did not increase the value of the products— that value was established by the market price at which they sold.” (Emphasis in original.)

Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 1 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 19, 2014

However, the department asserts that some of the property for which taxpayer claims exemption does not qualify for exemption. … This borderline can be difficult to establish completely.

Carter v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080689c (or.tax 4-30-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 2009

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 … That would clearly be inappropriate.

Hayden Island Condos v. Multnomah Cty., Tc-Md 060822d (or.tax 8-18-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 18, 2008

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff "cannot establish equitable estoppel on the facts of this case, * * * and the Assessor's denial of Plaintiff's Application as untimely filed was proper." … Similarly in Hoyt and Sidhu , taxpayers received documents (notices of adjustment) that clearly stated that their appeals must be filed within 90 days from the date of the notice.

Portland General Electric Co. v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 33 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 1, 1977

The scope of the imposition should be clearly expressed. … A reading of the six subsections contained in the statute shows an intent to establish rough rules of thumb.

Gibeau v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 091478b (or.tax 12-10-2010)

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 10, 2010

CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. … Plaintiffs in this case have clearly met that statutory requirement. Accordingly, their appeal must be granted.

Corvallis Nbhd. Housing Svcs. v. Linn Cty. Assessor

21 Or. Tax 95 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 27, 2013

Assessor some clearly admissible material. For this reason the court overrules the objection of the taxing authorities. B. … The retirees in Friendsview Manor collectively put up the capital to establish and operate their retirement home. 247 Or at 96.

Garten Foundation v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 554 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 2, 1993

Apparently plaintiff believed that, because the equipment had been incorporated into its real property, it would qualify for exemption. … The statute clearly requires the application for exemption to be filed not later than April 1 of each year. It is important to note two differences between ORS 307.162 and ORS 307.112.

Kirwan v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 424 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 15, 2014

Allowable deductions from taxable income are “a matter of legislative grace and * * * the burden of clearly showing the right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.” Interstate Transit Lines v. … Whether taxpayers’ expenses qualify as ordinary and necessary is essen- tially a question of fact and “it must appear that there is a proximate—rather than merely a remote or incidental— relationship between the claimed expenses

Martin v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 141 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 20, 1979

But plaintiffs testified they then agreed that the realtor would let plaintiffs know if and when the realtor found a qualified potential buyer interested in a large home, and they would talk with the potential purchaser to … Although their campaign has slackened, plaintiffs’ desire to sell was clearly proved at the trial. *[144] Plaintiffs suggested two reasons why their home did not, and has not, sold at the listed price or at any price.

Simms v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 32 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 27, 1988

The court does not believe that it qualifies as such. To qualify, a sale must be recent, voluntary, arm’s-length, between knowledgeable parties willing but not compelled to deal. … The lack of an adequate economic and population base, the loss of liability insurance coverage and the general decline in the roller skating rink industry clearly supports such a determination.

Estate of McGee v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 288 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 16, 1977

Jerman, 147 Or 657 , 35 P2d 248 (1934), contains an example of a clearly contingent remainder. … Clearly, these conditional uses go beyond the scope, spirit and intent of ORS 215.213.

American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 429 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 26, 1963

It is not qualified to do business in Oregon, maintains no office here, has no employees here, solicits no business here, and has no direct contractual arrangements with any railroad which operates in Oregon. … Tax Com., 229 Or 627, 632 , 368 P2d 337 (1962), and its statement of the due process criteria appears firmly established.

Ray v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 184 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 11, 1975

It has been noted that there *189 may be a greater constitutional restraint upon the application of a wholly new type tax than upon the retroactive application of a provision involving an established type of tax. 1 Mertens … Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process, and to challenge the present tax it is not enough to point out that the taxable event, the receipt of

Siuslaw F. Group v. Lane Co. Assessor, Tc-Md 080939c (or.tax 4-17-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 17, 2009

ORS 307.030 . 7 However, ORS 307.400 exempts from assessment and taxation qualifying "inventory." … The rules established by the courts, as set forth above, clearly reveal that the focus is both on the nature of the item ( i.e ., whether it is primarily held for sale) and on the nature of the business ( i.e ., those "businesses

Dept. of Rev. v. Croslin

19 Or. Tax 69 · Oregon Tax Court · May 23, 2006

Here, the words "or" and "that" in the first sentence of ORS 305.437 (1) make clear that the statute establishes two instances in which damages must be awarded: first, "[w]henever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings … Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 296 (2005). 4 Taxpayers also admitted that they had "instituted and maintained the proceedings before the Magistrate Division and clearly their position in the Magistrate Division was frivolous." 5 In