Fairbanks v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court

Fairbanks v. Dept. of Rev.

20 Or. Tax 552

CourtOregon Tax Court

DecidedJuly 30, 2012

DocketTC 5087

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Or. Tax 552 (Fairbanks v. Dept. of Rev.) 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

Fairbanks v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 552 (Or. Super. Ct. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

552 July 30, 2012 No. 61

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION

Alfred FAIRBANKS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Lake County Assessor, Defendants. (TC 5087) Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed from a Magistrate Division decision of dis- missal. Defendant (the department) moved for dismissal and summary judgment on the grounds that taxpayer was admittedly time-barred, there were no dis- puted material facts and that the department was entitled to prevail as a mat- ter of law. Granting the department’s motion, the court ruled that as taxpayer’s complaint was not timely filed, the court had no jurisdiction to grant taxpayer’s requested relief.

Submitted on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Alfred Fairbanks, Plaintiff (taxpayer), filed a response pro se. Melisse S. Cunningham, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motion for Defendant (the department). Decision for Defendant rendered July 30, 2012. HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Department of Revenue (the department). Plaintiff (taxpayer) has sub- mitted a writing to the court urging the court to deny the motion. The record clearly indicates, and taxpayer does not deny, that taxpayer’s appeal to the Magistrate Division of the court was untimely. Taxpayer strenuously asserts, how- ever, that he should not be barred from litigating the merits of the case and demonstrating the error in the actions of the county assessor. Cite as 20 OTR 552 (2012) 553

This court has no authority to hear a dispute and grant relief to a plaintiff unless the plaintiff complies with the time limits set by the legislature for the filing of a complaint. These time rules apply and have been enforced against both taxpayers and against the government. See Dept. of Rev. v. American Honda Motor Co., 20 OTR 404 (2011). The legislature has provided no exception that lengthens the time period for filing a complaint depending on the strength of the position of the plaintiff. The court cannot provide any exception on its own. The motion of the department is granted. Counsel for Defendant is directed to prepare an appropriate form of judgment. Now, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

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

552 July 30, 2012 No. 61

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION

Alfred FAIRBANKS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Lake County Assessor, Defendants. (TC 5087) Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed from a Magistrate Division decision of dis- missal. Defendant (the department) moved for dismissal and summary judgment on the grounds that taxpayer was admittedly time-barred, there were no dis- puted material facts and that the department was entitled to prevail as a mat- ter of law. Granting the department’s motion, the court ruled that as taxpayer’s complaint was not timely filed, the court had no jurisdiction to grant taxpayer’s requested relief.

Submitted on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Alfred Fairbanks, Plaintiff (taxpayer), filed a response pro se. Melisse S. Cunningham, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motion for Defendant (the department). Decision for Defendant rendered July 30, 2012. HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Department of Revenue (the department). Plaintiff (taxpayer) has sub- mitted a writing to the court urging the court to deny the motion. The record clearly indicates, and taxpayer does not deny, that taxpayer’s appeal to the Magistrate Division of the court was untimely. Taxpayer strenuously asserts, how- ever, that he should not be barred from litigating the merits of the case and demonstrating the error in the actions of the county assessor. Cite as 20 OTR 552 (2012) 553

This court has no authority to hear a dispute and grant relief to a plaintiff unless the plaintiff complies with the time limits set by the legislature for the filing of a complaint. These time rules apply and have been enforced against both taxpayers and against the government. See Dept. of Rev. v. American Honda Motor Co., 20 OTR 404 (2011). The legislature has provided no exception that lengthens the time period for filing a complaint depending on the strength of the position of the plaintiff. The court cannot provide any exception on its own. The motion of the department is granted. Counsel for Defendant is directed to prepare an appropriate form of judgment. Now, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Or. Tax 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairbanks-v-dept-of-rev-ortc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack