Acker v. Department of Revenue

CourtOregon Tax Court
DecidedAugust 10, 2012
DocketTC-MD 120056C
StatusUnpublished

This text of Acker v. Department of Revenue (Acker v. Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Acker v. Department of Revenue, (Or. Super. Ct. 2012).

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax

BRANDON D. ACKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 120056C ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) DECISION

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a

written motion on April 23, 2012, and Defendant filed a cross-motion on April 27, 2012. The

court heard oral argument at a hearing held by telephone on May 9, 2012. Plaintiff was

represented by Terry A. Slead, Certified Public Accountant (Slead). Defendant was represented

by Sandi Lyon, an auditor for the Department of Revenue.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff has lived and worked overseas in the Czech Republic since October 2006. (Ptf’s

Mot at 1.) Plaintiff filed a 2007 nonresident Oregon income tax return (Oregon Form 40N)

received by Defendant on April 8, 2008. (Id.) The return reported a tax due which Plaintiff paid

at the time the return was filed. (Def’s Cross Mot for Summ J at 2.) That return was prepared by

a tax preparer in Central Point, Oregon. (Ptf’s Mot at 1.) Plaintiff subsequently learned from

Slead that he qualified for two beneficial tax programs: (1) a foreign earned income exclusion on

his United States income tax returns, and (2) an income exclusion for non-Oregon source

income.1 (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff filed amended federal and state income tax returns on

1 Plaintiff became a client of Slead in 2010, and while Slead was preparing Plaintiff’s 2009 tax return she reviewed Plaintiff’s 2007 and 2008 returns and advised Plaintiff that the returns were incorrect and should be amended. (Ptf’s Motion at 2.)

DECISION TC-MD 120056C 1 June 15, 2011. (Id.) Defendant received Plaintiff’s amended 2007 return on June 17, 2011, and

agrees that it was “filed” on June 15, 2011. (Def’s Cross Mot for Summ J at 2.) Plaintiff’s

amended 2007 Oregon Form 40N reported a refund of $2,159. (Ptf’s Mot at 1.)

Defendant issued a Notice of Proposed Refund Adjustment on October 17, 2011. (Ptf’s

Compl at 4.) That notice indicated that the refund claim was being denied because, “[u]nder

Oregon law, you only have three years from the due date of return to file for a refund. * * *

Because you filed too late, we can’t issue a refund or use it to pay tax for another year.

ORS 314.415(2)(a).” (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff acknowledges the statutory three-year refund rule under ORS 314.415(2)(a) but

insists that Plaintiff’s amended 2007 Oregon return was filed within the three-year statutory

period because Treasury Regulation 1.6081-5 provides for an automatic two-month extension for

the filing of a federal tax return, making the due date for his 2007 return June 15, 2008. (Ptf’s

Motion at 2.) Plaintiff argues that ORS 314.385 provides in part that returns filed with the

Oregon Department of Revenue shall be filed on or before the due date of the corresponding

federal return for the tax year at issue as prescribed under the Internal Revenue Code and the

regulations adopted pursuant thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that under ORS 305.270, the claim

for refund shall be filed within the period specified in ORS 314.415(2)(a), that the period

specified in that latter statute is three years from the due date of the original return, and that

Plaintiff’s amended return was filed within that three-year window because the original return

due date was automatically extended to June 15. (Id.)

///

DECISION TC-MD 120056C 2 A. Relevant statutes and treasury regulation

ORS 314.415(2)(a)2 states in pertinent part that:

“The department may not allow or make a refund after three years from the time the return was filed, or two years from the time the tax (or a portion of the tax) was paid, whichever period expires later, unless before the expiration of this period a claim for refund is filed by the taxpayer in compliance with ORS 305.270.”

(Emphasis added.) ORS 314.385(1) states that “returns shall be filed with the Department of

Revenue on or before the due date of the corresponding federal return.” Defendant “may allow

further time for filing returns equal in length to the extension periods allowed under the Internal

Revenue Code and its regulations.” Id.

Plaintiff claims that under Treasury Regulation 1.6081-5 (§ 1.6081-5) “the due date for

filing individual income tax returns (and incidentally for the payment of the tax as well) is

June 15 for taxpayers who reside overseas on April 15.” (Ptf’s Motion at 2.) The regulation

states in relevant part that:

“(a) An extension of time for filing returns of income and for paying any tax shown on the return is hereby granted to and including the fifteenth day of the sixth month following the close of the taxable year in the case of— ***** (5) United States citizens or residents whose tax homes and abodes, in a real and substantial sense, are outside the United States and Puerto Rico; [] ***** (b) In order to qualify for the extension under this section—

(1) A statement must be attached to the return showing that the person for whom the return is made is a person described in paragraph (a) of this section; []”

Treas Reg 1.6081-5 (2012) (as amended by TD 8312, Sept 10, 1990).3

2 All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) are to 2005. 3 Treasury regulations are the authoritative interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code so long as they are reasonable. Cottage Sav. Ass’n v. Comm’r, 499 US 554, 560-61, 111 S Ct 1503, 113 L Ed 2d 589 (1991).

DECISION TC-MD 120056C 3 B. Due date

The court’s task in interpreting a federal statute “is to identify and carry out the intent”

behind its creation. Shaw v. PACC Health Plan, Inc., 322 Or 392, 400, 908 P2d 308 (1995)

(citing Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 US 41, 45, 107 S Ct 1549, 95 L Ed 2d 39 (1987)).

The extension provided by § 1.6081-5 was created with the intention of allowing citizens living

abroad additional time to file their income tax returns because it was recognized that these

citizens may have difficulty filing by April 15. See TD 8312, Sept 10, 1990. This recognized

difficulty would presumably apply to citizens living abroad in meeting a three year deadline for

filing as well. However, the due date for filing Oregon returns is prescribed by Oregon statute,

and in interpreting an Oregon statute the court cannot “insert what has been omitted, or [] omit

what has been inserted.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d

1143 (1993), citing ORS 174.010.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux
481 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner
499 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Shaw Ex Rel. Zollner v. PACC Health Plan, Inc.
908 P.2d 308 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1995)
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
859 P.2d 1143 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Acker v. Department of Revenue, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acker-v-department-of-revenue-ortc-2012.