IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax
AHMED ADAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 250623R ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion).1
Plaintiff’s income tax appeal concerns a claimed credit for the Oregon Kids Credit, ORS
315.273, and the Oregon Earned Income Credit, ORS 315.266, on his 2024 income tax return.2
Plaintiff asserts he is eligible for the credits based on his care for his two year-old niece. (Compl
at 4.) He alleges that his niece and her mother lived with him for more than six months in 2024,
and that both he and his niece possess valid Social Security numbers necessary to claim the
credits. (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence during its
audit and that the child’s status does not qualify for the credits. (Def’s Mot for Sum J at 3-4.)
For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that material issues of fact remain unresolved, and
therefore, Defendant’s Motion must be denied.
///
1 Following the court’s January 15, 2026, Journal Entry, which set a briefing schedule for summary judgment, Plaintiff did not file any motion or arguments. See Tax Court Rule – Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 7 A (“every motion * * * must be made in writing and must state the reasons and authorities for the motion and the relief requested should be accompanied by any necessary declarations, affidavits, or other documentary evidence.”) Instead, Plaintiff filed an additional copy of his Complaint, along with copies of his 2024 returns and Oregon Kids Credit Worksheet, without further explanation. 2 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 version.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 1 A. Motion for Summary Judgment Converted to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Summary judgment is properly granted when “the pleadings, depositions, affidavits,
declarations and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Tax Court Rule (TCR) 47 C; TCR-
MD 13 B (applying TCR 47). “No genuine issue as to a material fact exists if, based upon the
record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively
reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party * * *.” TCR 47 C. That rule also
provides that “[t]he adverse party has the burden of producing evidence on any issue raised in the
motions as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial. The adverse
party may satisfy the burden of producing evidence with an affidavit or declaration * * *.” Id.
Here, neither party’s filings, made according to the court’s briefing schedule, provided
evidence – that is, facts offered via an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury – in
support or opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court considers
Defendant’s Motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings rather than as a motion for
summary judgment supported by evidence. See Maletis v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC-MD
180260G, 2018 WL 7247279 (Or Tax M Div, Oct 17, 2018) (observing “a case may remain at
the pleadings stage although a motion for summary judgment is filed if the motion is based
entirely on the pleadings”); citing Johnson v. Johnson, 302 Or 382, 388 n5, 730 P2d 1221 (1986)
(noting a motion for summary judgment supported only by the pleadings is functionally
equivalent to a motion for failure to state a claim or a motion for judgment on the pleadings). A
motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to TCR 21 B,3 is allowable when “the pleadings
3 As no Magistrate Division rule covers motions for judgment on the pleadings, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide in the Magistrate Division, to the extent relevant. See Magistrate Division Rules Preface.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 2 taken together affirmatively show that a party seeking relief has no claim for relief.” Buras v.
Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 282, 284 (2004). In ruling on Defendant’s Motion, the court assumes that
all the well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff’s complaint are true. Id. The court begins its analysis by
summarizing the laws providing for the credits at issue in Plaintiff’s tax return.
B. Governing Substantive Law
1. Oregon Kids Credit
ORS 315.273 sets forth the requirements for the Oregon Kids Credit (OKC). The credit
is allowed for each dependent of the taxpayer, as described by IRC section 152(a), who is under
six years of age at the close of the tax year, and who is a “qualifying child” as set for in IRC
section 152(c). ORS 315.273(1). The IRC section 152(c) requirements for a “qualifying child”
include the child’s relationship to the taxpayer, age, support, and joint-return elements. The
relationship test includes a “a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the taxpayer or a
descendant of any such relative.” IRC § 152(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). When more than one
taxpayer may claim the same child, the “tie-breaker” rules in IRC section 152(c)(4) determine
which taxpayer is treated as having the qualifying child.
2. Oregon Earned Income Credit (Oregon EITC)
The Oregon EITC is calculated as a percentage of the federal Earned Income Credit
allowed under IRC section 32 for the same tax year. ORS 315.266(1). Eligibility for the Oregon
EITC therefore depends, in part, on satisfaction with federal EITC requirements, including
qualifying-child status where applicable. ORS 315.266(1); IRC § 32(c)(3).
3. Department authority to require documentation
ORS 314.425(1) authorizes the department to examine records, take testimony, and
require proof material for ascertaining the correctness of any return. That statute governs audit
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 3 and examination authority. However, ORS 314.425 does not alter the substantive eligibility
standards incorporated by ORS 315.273 and ORS 315.266.
C. Analysis
Defendant argues that Plaintiff is barred from claiming his niece under the federal tie-
breaker rule in IRC section 152(c)(4), and that Plaintiff failed to substantiate eligibility during
the audit process. Neither ORS 315.273 nor IRC section 152(c) categorically excludes a niece
from qualifying-child status. To the contrary, IRC section 152(c)(2)(B) includes within the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax
AHMED ADAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 250623R ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion).1
Plaintiff’s income tax appeal concerns a claimed credit for the Oregon Kids Credit, ORS
315.273, and the Oregon Earned Income Credit, ORS 315.266, on his 2024 income tax return.2
Plaintiff asserts he is eligible for the credits based on his care for his two year-old niece. (Compl
at 4.) He alleges that his niece and her mother lived with him for more than six months in 2024,
and that both he and his niece possess valid Social Security numbers necessary to claim the
credits. (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence during its
audit and that the child’s status does not qualify for the credits. (Def’s Mot for Sum J at 3-4.)
For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that material issues of fact remain unresolved, and
therefore, Defendant’s Motion must be denied.
///
1 Following the court’s January 15, 2026, Journal Entry, which set a briefing schedule for summary judgment, Plaintiff did not file any motion or arguments. See Tax Court Rule – Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 7 A (“every motion * * * must be made in writing and must state the reasons and authorities for the motion and the relief requested should be accompanied by any necessary declarations, affidavits, or other documentary evidence.”) Instead, Plaintiff filed an additional copy of his Complaint, along with copies of his 2024 returns and Oregon Kids Credit Worksheet, without further explanation. 2 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 version.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 1 A. Motion for Summary Judgment Converted to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Summary judgment is properly granted when “the pleadings, depositions, affidavits,
declarations and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Tax Court Rule (TCR) 47 C; TCR-
MD 13 B (applying TCR 47). “No genuine issue as to a material fact exists if, based upon the
record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively
reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party * * *.” TCR 47 C. That rule also
provides that “[t]he adverse party has the burden of producing evidence on any issue raised in the
motions as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial. The adverse
party may satisfy the burden of producing evidence with an affidavit or declaration * * *.” Id.
Here, neither party’s filings, made according to the court’s briefing schedule, provided
evidence – that is, facts offered via an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury – in
support or opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court considers
Defendant’s Motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings rather than as a motion for
summary judgment supported by evidence. See Maletis v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC-MD
180260G, 2018 WL 7247279 (Or Tax M Div, Oct 17, 2018) (observing “a case may remain at
the pleadings stage although a motion for summary judgment is filed if the motion is based
entirely on the pleadings”); citing Johnson v. Johnson, 302 Or 382, 388 n5, 730 P2d 1221 (1986)
(noting a motion for summary judgment supported only by the pleadings is functionally
equivalent to a motion for failure to state a claim or a motion for judgment on the pleadings). A
motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to TCR 21 B,3 is allowable when “the pleadings
3 As no Magistrate Division rule covers motions for judgment on the pleadings, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide in the Magistrate Division, to the extent relevant. See Magistrate Division Rules Preface.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 2 taken together affirmatively show that a party seeking relief has no claim for relief.” Buras v.
Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 282, 284 (2004). In ruling on Defendant’s Motion, the court assumes that
all the well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff’s complaint are true. Id. The court begins its analysis by
summarizing the laws providing for the credits at issue in Plaintiff’s tax return.
B. Governing Substantive Law
1. Oregon Kids Credit
ORS 315.273 sets forth the requirements for the Oregon Kids Credit (OKC). The credit
is allowed for each dependent of the taxpayer, as described by IRC section 152(a), who is under
six years of age at the close of the tax year, and who is a “qualifying child” as set for in IRC
section 152(c). ORS 315.273(1). The IRC section 152(c) requirements for a “qualifying child”
include the child’s relationship to the taxpayer, age, support, and joint-return elements. The
relationship test includes a “a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the taxpayer or a
descendant of any such relative.” IRC § 152(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). When more than one
taxpayer may claim the same child, the “tie-breaker” rules in IRC section 152(c)(4) determine
which taxpayer is treated as having the qualifying child.
2. Oregon Earned Income Credit (Oregon EITC)
The Oregon EITC is calculated as a percentage of the federal Earned Income Credit
allowed under IRC section 32 for the same tax year. ORS 315.266(1). Eligibility for the Oregon
EITC therefore depends, in part, on satisfaction with federal EITC requirements, including
qualifying-child status where applicable. ORS 315.266(1); IRC § 32(c)(3).
3. Department authority to require documentation
ORS 314.425(1) authorizes the department to examine records, take testimony, and
require proof material for ascertaining the correctness of any return. That statute governs audit
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 3 and examination authority. However, ORS 314.425 does not alter the substantive eligibility
standards incorporated by ORS 315.273 and ORS 315.266.
C. Analysis
Defendant argues that Plaintiff is barred from claiming his niece under the federal tie-
breaker rule in IRC section 152(c)(4), and that Plaintiff failed to substantiate eligibility during
the audit process. Neither ORS 315.273 nor IRC section 152(c) categorically excludes a niece
from qualifying-child status. To the contrary, IRC section 152(c)(2)(B) includes within the
relationship test a child of the taxpayer’s brother or sister. Accordingly, the question is not
whether the relationship category is legally barred, but whether the record establishes, without
genuine dispute, that Plaintiff fails to satisfy one or more of the qualifying-child elements set out
in IRC section 152(c). This includes application of the tie-breaker rules in IRC section
152(c)(4).
Returning to the circumstances necessary for obtaining a judgment on the pleadings, such
a motion “is never appropriate when the pleadings indicate that an issue of fact remains to be
resolved.” Buras, 17 OTR at 284 (citing Salem Sand v. City of Salem, 260 Or 630, 636, 492 P2d
271 (1971)). Here, the tie-breaker rules in IRC section 152(c)(4) require factual determinations
concerning, among other matters, whether another taxpayer qualifies as a parent, whether such
parent claimed or could claim the child, the child’s period of residence with each potential
claimant, and comparative adjusted gross incomes. IRC § 152(c)(4)(A)-(C). Neither party has
provided undisputed evidence resolving those factual predicates necessary to permit the
application of IRC section 152(c)(4) as a matter of law. Similarly, the residency and support
requirements under IRC section 152(c)(1)(B) and (D) require factual determination.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 4 Because the Oregon EITC depends on eligibility under IRC section 32, and because
qualifying-child status under IRC section 152(c) may be material to the determination, the same
unresolved factual issues preclude judgment on the pleadings regarding that credit. See ORS
315.266(1); IRC § 32(c)(3).
D. Conclusion
Neither party has demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under TCR 21
B. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion must be denied. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment is denied.
RICHARD D. DAVIS MAGISTRATE
This interim order may not be appealed. Any claim of error in regard to this order should be raised in an appeal of the Magistrate’s final written decision when all issues have been resolved. ORS 305.501.
This document was signed by Magistrate Richard D. Davis and entered on March 6, 2026.
ORDER TC-MD 250623R 5