Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants were three municipal corporations located in Washington State: The City of Seattle, the City of Tacoma, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (taxpayers). Each taxpayer owned an interest in electrical transmission capacity that was purchased from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and was used for transmitting electricity over the Northwest's federally-administered power transmission grid. Together, the taxpayers appealed the grant of summary judgment in which the OregonTax Court, citing "Power Resources Cooperative v. Dept. of Rev.," (996 P2d 969 (2000)), concluded that taxpayers' interest in electrical transmission capacity could (because much of that grid was located in Oregon) be taxed by the department as a property interest "held" by taxpayers, under ORS 307.060. On appeal, taxpayers argued that: (1) "Power Resources" was wrongly decided; (2) the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in "Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Rev.," (131 P3d 725 (2006)) did not apply in this case; and (3) the Oregon legislature's repeal of the 2005 property tax exemption benefitting out-of-state power-generating municipalities was enacted in violation of Article IV, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, a provision that required bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives. The Oregon Court rejected the taxpayers' arguments and affirmed the Oregon Tax Court. View "City of Seattle v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The Department of Revenue appealed a Tax Court decision that accepted the property valuation proposed by taxpayer Hewlett-Packard (HP). In reaching that conclusion, the Tax Court held that the highest and best use of HP's property was a continuation of its current use as a single-tenant, owner-occupied research and manufacturing facility. The Tax Court also held that, of the numerous buildings on the campus, a potential owner would anticipate using only certain "core" buildings and would not anticipate using the "non-core" buildings. As a result, those non-core buildings were components of the property that prevented it from cost-effectively serving its highest and best use. The Tax Court, therefore, assessed the value of the loss caused by the presence of the non-core buildings. To do so, the Tax Court calculated the additional operating expenses that an owner would incur while operating the subject property as compared to the operating expenses that an owner would incur while operating a cost-effective version of the property consisting of only the core space. On appeal, the department raised the narrow issue of whether the Tax Court properly applied the administrative rule defining the value of the loss, OAR 150-308.205-(F)(3)(k). The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the Tax Court properly identified the value of the loss as the additional operating expenses that an owner would incur to operate the subject property compared to a more cost-effective option. View "Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Benton County Assessor" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Marion County Assessor could obtain a correction to the tax rolls concerning the valuation of the real property of taxpayer Willamette Estates II, LLC from the Department of Revenue. The Tax Court concluded that the assessor was authorized by administrative rule to seek such a correction and that the department was authorized by statute to allow it. The taxpayer appealed, arguing the Tax Court's decision essentially sanctioned an assessor's unlawful appeal of his own assessment. In the alternative, taxpayer argued that the Tax Court's decision conflicted with the Oregon Supreme Court's precedents. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Willamette Estates II, LLC v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Powerex Corporation wholesales natural gas and electricity to purchasers throughout the western part of North America. The issue on appeal was how much of Powerex's income was taxable in Oregon. This case turned on whether Powerex’s sales of electricity and natural gas occurred "in this state." The rules for making that determination differed depending on whether the sales are sales of "tangible personal property" or other types of sales. Generally, sales of tangible personal property are "in this state" if "[t]he property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser * * * within this state regardless of the f.o.b. point or other conditions of the sale." In the Tax Court, the parties agreed that natural gas was tangible personal property. They disagreed whether, in selling natural gas, Powerex shipped or delivered natural gas to purchasers "within this state." The Tax Court found that Powerex shipped gas to purchasers in other states through a hub in Malin where two pipelines intersected. It concluded that, in doing so, Powerex had not shipped or delivered gas to purchasers within Oregon. Regarding Powerex’s sales of electricity, the parties disagreed whether electricity is tangible personal property. The Tax Court ruled that electricity is not tangible personal property and that, because the greater part of the activity that produced the income from Powerex’s electricity sales occurred in British Columbia, those sales were not attributable to Oregon. The Tax Court accordingly concluded that, for the tax years at issue here, neither Powerex’s sales of electricity nor its sales of natural gas were "in this state." The Department of Revenue appealed that decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Tax Court correctly held that Powerex's natural gas sales were not "in this state." With regard to electricity, the Court reversed the Tax Court, and remanded the case to that court for consideration of whether electric transmission systems functioned in the same way that natural gas pipelines did: "[i]f the Tax Court makes that finding on remand, then our conclusion regarding Powerex’s natural gas sales presumably will control how most of Powerex’s electricity sales will be allocated." View "Powerex Corp. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Taxpayer Erma Glasgow challenged the Tax Court’s jurisdiction, its conclusion that she was liable for personal income taxes based on wages that she earned in tax years 2007 through 2010, and its assessment of a penalty for pursuing a frivolous appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. View "Glasgow v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

This case was a direct appeal of an Oregon Tax Court Regular Division decision to set aside an Opinion and Order issued by the Director of the Department of Revenue. The primary issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether either Comcast's cable television service or internet access service qualified as "communication" under ORS 308.515(1)(h) and was, therefore, subject to central assessment by the department. In this case, whether Comcast's cable television service or internet access service qualified as a "communication" service or business depended on whether either service was a "data transmission service." The Tax Court concluded that Comcast's internet access service, but not its cable television service, was a data transmission service. Furthermore, the Tax Court concluded that Comcast's cable television service was the primary use of the property that Comcast uses for both. Consequently, pursuant to ORS 308.510(5), the Tax Court determined that the property that Comcast used for the two services was not subject to central assessment for the 2009-2010 tax year, contrary to the department's determination. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court held that both the cable television and internet access services qualified as data transmission services and were, therefore, communication services subject to central assessment under ORS 308.515(1)(h). View "Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

In consolidated property tax appeals, taxpayers challenged the valuation of their real property by the Clackamas County Assessor. In their appeals to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court, they challenged only the valuation of the improvements on their land, not the valuation of the land itself. The Magistrate Division affirmed. Taxpayers then appealed to the Regular Division of the Tax Court, again challenging only the valuation of their improvements. In the pendency of that appeal, the legislature had enacted ORS 305.287. Under that new statute, even if a taxpayer challenged only one aspect of a property tax assessment, any other party to an “appeal” may challenge other aspects of the assessment as well. Relying on that statute, the county asserted for the first time before the Regular Division of the Tax Court that it had erroneously undervalued taxpayers’ land. The Tax Court concluded, however, that challenges before the Regular Division were not “appeals” for the purposes of that statute. As a result, the court ruled that the county could not challenge the valuation of taxpayers’ land. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Tax Court correctly concluded that ORS 305.287 did not apply to appeals to the Regular Division of the Tax Court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Tax Court erred in ruling that the statute did not apply and that the county could not challenge its own land valuations. View "Village at Main Street Phase II v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

In 2006, the Department of Revenue issued a notice of deficiency against Tektronix, Inc. for $3.7 million in additional tax for the 1999 tax year. Tektronix contended that: (1) the statute of limitations barred the department from assessing that deficiency; and (2) the department had incorrectly calculated its tax liability. The Tax Court granted partial summary judgment for Tektronixs on both grounds. The Department appealed that decision. Finding that the Department indeed incorrectly calculated taxpayer's tax liability, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court. View "Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether a taxpayer could satisfy its obligation to "pay annually to the state" the $75,000 corporate minimum tax under ORS 3 317.090(2), by claiming on its corporate excise tax return a $75,000 "Business Energy Tax Credit" (BETC) under ORS 315.354. The Tax Court concluded that the taxpayer, Con-Way, could satisfy its tax liability under ORS 317.090(2) by claiming a BETC on its return. The Department of Revenue (department) appealed, arguing that the Tax Court's conclusion was inconsistent with ORS 317.090(2), on the ground that a tax credit cannot be used to pay or otherwise satisfy the minimum tax imposed under ORS 2 317.090(2). Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Con-Way Inc. & Affiliates v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The primary question in this case was whether the Oregon Department of Revenue properly classified income resulting from the sale of Crystal Communication's assets as "business income." Crystal operated as a multistate business providing wireless cellular telecommunications services and, in the relevant tax years, sold its assets related to those services. It reported the gain from the asset sale as "nonbusiness income" and allocated that gain to Florida, its state of commercial domicile. On audit, the department reclassified the gain as apportionable "business income." Crystal challenged the reclassification, and the Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the department and entered judgment accordingly. Crystal appealed to this court. Finding no error in the classification, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law