Falls v. Grant County Assessor, Tc-Md 080678b (or.tax 2-12-2009)
This text of Falls v. Grant County Assessor, Tc-Md 080678b (or.tax 2-12-2009) (Falls v. Grant County Assessor, Tc-Md 080678b (or.tax 2-12-2009)) 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.
Opinion
A trial was held December 4, 2008. Edward H. Falls and Sharon K. Falls participated on their own behalf. Defendant was represented by Lane Burton, Assessor, and Mike Kilpatrick, legal counsel.
Plaintiffs received no cash from uses of that land nor did they report any actions from that land on a federal Schedule F to their recent income tax returns.
Plaintiffs did supply Defendant with copies of a land lease on the land. (Ptfs' Ex B.) It was for "the barter value of $750.00 yearly in exchange for operating and maintaining properties waterights." (Id) (emphasis added). *Page 2
Defendant denied the application on April 8, 2008. In its letter of explanation, Defendant stated that "your income was received in the form of `barter'." (Ptfs' Ex C.)
ORS
For land within an exclusive farm use zone (Account 5487), the requirement is to employ the land for the "primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money." ORS
Clearly, as to the non-EFU zoned land the minimum income requirements are not met. As to the remaining acres, the court concludes that the barter arrangement, involving such a minimal amount of trading, is not of the character nor does it rise to the level required by the statutes. It is not related to any sort of profit or money. There was no money received or activity related to the land reported on federal tax forms. *Page 3
The term "barter" is defined as "an exchange of goods for goods * * * replaced by a money economy." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 180 (unabridged ed 2002). Barter and money are mutually exclusive.
It is clear that raising animals for family use or pigs to trade with a neighbor do not equate with the primary purpose of obtaining a profit.Everhart v. Dept. of Rev.,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' appeal is denied.
Dated this _____ day of February 2009.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of theDecision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Magistrate Jeffrey S. Mattson on February12, 2009. The Court filed and entered this document on February 12,2009.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Falls v. Grant County Assessor, Tc-Md 080678b (or.tax 2-12-2009), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falls-v-grant-county-assessor-tc-md-080678b-ortax-2-12-2009-ortc-2009.