IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax
ANNUNZIATA O. GOULD ) and JAMES S. GUILD, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 210019R, 210045R, 210046R, ) 210050R, 210051R v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY State of Oregon, ) JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND ) DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. ) FOR PLAINTIFFS
This matter comes before the court on parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.
Oral argument on the motions was held January 27, 2022. Plaintiffs were represented by Matin
Hansen, an Oregon attorney, of Francis Hansen & Martin, LLP. Defendant was represented by
Assistant Attorney General Sam Zeigler.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
At issue is the treatment of Plaintiffs’ substantial overpayments for the 2013 through
2017 tax years.1 (Ptfs’ Mot for Summ J, Stip Facts, Ex A at 1.) Plaintiffs made 18 estimated
payments during the relevant tax years totaling $875,000. (Id. at 8.) Despite making substantial
estimated payments during those years, Plaintiffs did not file their 2013 through 2017 tax returns
until early November 2020, and January 2021.2 (Id.) Plaintiffs’ total tax liability for tax years
2013 through 2017, combined with interest for underpayment of estimated tax during those
1 Case number 210050R appeals the 2013 tax year; case number 210045R appeals the 2014 tax year; case number 210019R appeals the 2015 tax year; case number 210046R appeals the 2016 tax year; and case number 210051R appeals the 2017 tax year. 2 On November 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their 2014 and 2015 returns—Defendant processed the 2015 return first. (Ptfs’ Mot Summ J, Stip Facts, Ex A at 5.) On November 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their 2013 return. (Id. at 3.) On December 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their 2016 return. (Id. at 6.) Finally, on January 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 2017 return. (Id.)
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 1 years, was $462,053. (Id.) In total, Plaintiffs overpaid their 2013 through 2016 taxes by
$412,947—which they asked to be applied as a credit against future estimated taxes. Defendant
sent notices for each tax year denying the credit. The notices explained that:
“Because we received your return more than three years after the due date, your refund is limited to the amount of payments you made in the past two years. We can’t issue the full refund amount or apply it against tax for another year.”
(citing ORS 314.415(2)(a) and OAR 150-314-0240.) Plaintiffs filed written objections with
Defendant, each of which was denied.
Although the 2012 tax year is not at issue in this case, Plaintiffs’ overpayment for that
year of $177,691 was applied towards their 2015 taxes. (Ptfs’ Mot Summ J, Stip Facts, Ex A at
1-2.) Defendant received Plaintiffs’ 2012 return on July 30, 2015, two years and over three
months after its original April 15, 2013, due date. (Id.) Plaintiffs reported an overpayment of
$177,911. (Id., Ex A at 1-2; Ex B.) Plaintiffs elected on the return to have the overpayment
applied towards Plaintiffs’ estimated taxes for the 2013 tax year. (Id., Ex A at 1-2.) Defendant
later adjusted this overpayment amount by the interest due for underpayment of estimated tax
due in 2012, for a total of $177,691 to be applied towards the 2013 return. (Id.) Because the
next return Defendant received from Plaintiffs was the 2015 tax return, Defendant credited this
overpayment towards Plaintiffs’ 2015 liability—Defendant did not apply the overpayment
towards Plaintiffs’ 2013 return. (Id. at 5.)3
II. ANALYSIS
The issue in this case is whether a taxpayer who tenders timely estimated tax payments
but does not file their personal income tax return within three years of the date the return is due
3 The parties submitted additional and very detailed accountings for each tax year, however, a complete recitation here would not be helpful to an analysis of the issues in this case.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 2 or make payments within two years from the date a refund or credit is requested, is entitled to a
credit of overpayment for a subsequent tax year pursuant to ORS 316.583(3).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) seeks to compel Defendant to carry
forward overpayments from estimated tax payments to future years’ tax liabilities. Plaintiff
asserts that they are not bound by a three-year limitation period on refunds pursuant to ORS
314.415(2)(a)4 because (1) they are seeking a credit and not a refund, and (2) their estimated
payments are not “deemed paid” until their late return was filed which means their payment was
made within two years of the filing of their return and thus they are entitled to a refund or credit
of the excess amounts paid. Defendant asks this court to uphold the determinations documented
in the Notices of Proposed Refund Adjustment for the 2013 through 2017 tax years denying
taxpayers credits for overpayments when the estimated payments were tendered more than three-
years after the returns were due. Defendant contends that ORS 316.583(3) should not be
construed as extending the statute of limitations on overpayments.
A. Summary Judgment
Tax Court Rule Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 13 B allows the court to apply Tax Court
Rule (TCR) 47 for motions for summary judgment to the extent relevant. TCR 47 C provides
that the court will grant a motion for summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions,
affidavits, declarations, and admissions on file show there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” “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”
4 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2015 edition. No changes were made between the 2011 and 2015 to the relevant statutes, so the same substantive provisions apply to all tax years at issue.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 3 on the matter. TCR 47 C. The court agrees with the parties that there are no disputed issues of
material fact.
Oregon courts begin their statutory analysis by looking at the text and context of a statute.
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). This case concerns a supposed
conflict between ORS 314.415 and ORS 316.583. Thus, the court begins with the relevant
statutes at issue.
ORS 314.415(1) establishes that the department shall issue a refund for excess taxes paid.
However, that statute places limits on the time during which a refund may issue; “[t]he
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
* * *.” ORS 314.415(2)(a). “[I]f the original return is not filed within three years of the due
date, excluding extensions, of the return, the department may allow or make a refund only of
amounts paid within two years from the date of the filing of the claim for refund.” Id. If the
time for a refund has lapsed under this statute, “the department may not allow the excess as a
credit against any tax occurring on a return filed for a subsequent year.” Id.
In the context of estimated taxes, ORS 316.583(3) provides that
“If there is an overpayment of income taxes for a taxable year, and the taxpayer elects on a return (including an amended return) for that taxable year filed after the due date (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing) to have the overpayment credited against an installment of estimated tax for a subsequent taxable year, the overpayment shall be credited against that installment of estimated tax. The amount credited shall be deemed paid as estimated tax on the date the return was filed.”
(Emphasis added.) Consider a simplified fact pattern to illustrate the parties’ positions: Plaintiffs
timely pays estimated taxes but fails to file their 2013 tax return until 2020. Under Plaintiffs’
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 4 approach, the estimated payments made in 2013 would not be deemed paid under ORS
316.583(3) until 2020, when their return was filed. Because the estimated payment is not
considered deemed paid until 2020, Plaintiffs have paid within two years of their late filed
return. This places the taxpayer’s payments within the two-year deadline of ORS 314.415(2)(a)
and entitled to a refund or credit. Under Defendant’s approach, the estimated payments made in
2013 are considered paid on the original due date for filing the return in April of 2014 under
ORS 316.417. (Def’s Reply at 4.) Because Plaintiffs’ return was filed after the three years
provided for in ORS 314.415(2)(b) and the estimated tax payments are considered “paid” in
2014, no amount can be refunded or credited. (Id. at 5.)
ORS 316.417 provides that “[a]n advance payment of any portion of the tax made at the
time the return was filed is considered as made on the last day prescribed by law for the payment
of the tax, or if the taxpayer elected to pay the tax in installments, on the last day prescribed for
payment of the first installment.” The last day for payment of personal income taxes is the on or
about April 15 of the next tax year. See ORS 314.395 (“tax shall be paid to [Defendant] at the
time fixed by ORS 314.385 for filing the return without regard to extensions’); ORS 314.385
(“returns shall be filed * * * on or before the due date for the corresponding federal return for the
tax year”). In general, estimated payments are made in four equal installments, the first of which
is due on or about April 15 of the taxable year. ORS 316.579; ORS 316.577.
Defendant’s argument that a taxpayer could indefinitely “bank” estimated payment is
persuasive. Based on Plaintiffs’ reading, a taxpayer could file estimated payments and then wait
50 years to file their tax return and get full credit for those estimated taxes less any failure to file
penalty. Even taking into account the fact that no interest would accrue under ORS
///
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 5 314.415(2)(e), it seems unlikely that the legislature would have intended to create this exception
applicable only to estimated taxes (but not taxes paid or withheld by employers).
Defendant cited numerous cases none of which support Plaintiffs’ reading of ORS
314.415: Jones v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 92 (2000) (holding that estimated payment of $10,000
could not be refunded under former ORS 314.415 (1997) where payment was made in 1994 and
the return was filed in 1998); Dennis v. Dept. of Rev., TC-MD 091424D, WL 3809999 (Or Tax
M Div, Sept 8, 2010) (denying refund where taxpayer filed return past the three year period in
ORS 314.415(2)(a) and no evidence was presented regarding payments made within two years of
return filing) and Gann v. Dept. of Rev., TC-MD 091232C, WL 4021155 (Or Tax M Div, Nov
13, 2009) (holding that estimated payments that cannot be refunded under ORS 314.415(2)(a)
cannot be applied against future estimated taxes). Plaintiffs assert that a credit for estimated tax
credit is not a refund, and therefore ORS 314.415(2)(a) does not apply. Plaintiffs argue the issue
is controlled simply by ORS 316.583(3), which has no time limit. Defendant, on the other hand,
asserts that ORS 314.415(2)(a) applies to both refunds and the credit available under ORS
316.583(3). The only case that seems related as it refers to ORS 316.583 and estimated
payments is Sullivan v. Dept of Rev., TC-MD 080833C, WL 6085679, (Or Tax M Div, Sept 19,
2008). Sullivan appears to consider whether a refund that is otherwise barred as untimely under
ORS 314.415 may nonetheless be credited as an estimated payment under ORS 316.565 to ORS
316.583. Id. at *2. The court held that refunds barred as untimely could not be credited as
estimated payments. Id. ORS 316.583 has not changed since the time that case was decided and
the tax years at issue in this case. Additionally, the court finds nothing in 2005 changes to ORS
314.415 that would require a different result.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 6 The court tentatively concludes that, based the text and context, Defendant’s reading of
the statute is more persuasive, however, the court will still consider legislative history.
C. Legislative History
There is no requirement of ambiguity for courts to consider legislative history so long as
it can be useful for its analysis. Gaines, 346 Or at 171-172. The court looks to legislative
history and legislators’ comments in amendments to ORS 314.415 and ORS 316.583.
1. ORS 314.415 (Time for Claiming a Refund)
In 2005 the Oregon Legislature considered HB 2448 which proposed amendments to
ORS 314.415. HB 2448 passed with little debate or controversy. Only Chair R. Thomas Butler
(Chair Butler) commented on the proposed amendment, and the bill passed without objection at
every stage. In the excerpt of the provision below, the text that is italicized and in brackets was
deleted by HB 2448; the text in bold was added by HR 2448:
[(b)(A)] (2)(a) [No refund shall be allowed or made] 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 [thereof] of the tax) was paid, whichever period expires [the] later, unless before the expiration of [such] this period a claim for refund is filed by the taxpayer in compliance with ORS 305.270.[, nor shall a refund claimed on an original return be allowed or made in any case unless the return is filed within three years of the due date, excluding extensions, of the return in respect of which the tax might have been credited.] In any case, if the original return is not filed within three years of the due date, excluding extensions, of the return, the department may allow or make a refund only of amounts paid within two years from the date of the filing of the claim for refund. If a refund is disallowed for the tax year during which excess tax was paid for any reason set forth in this [paragraph, the excess shall not be allowed] subsection, the department may not allow the excess as a credit against any tax occurring on a return filed for a subsequent year.”
HB 2448 (2005).
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 7 The 2005 amendments were to fix an anomaly in the treatment of late filers.5 The Staff
Measure Summary for HB 2448 explained the amendments to the bill: “[p]ermits the Department
of Revenue to refund amounts determined to be overpayments on original tax returns which were
filed more than 3 years after the due date. Limits the refund amount to the amounts paid within 2
years from the date of filing of the claim for refund * * *.” House Revenue Committee, HB
2448, Feb 9, 2005, Ex 3 (Staff Measure Summary). The text focuses on creating a three-year
deadline that taxpayers could overcome if they had paid within two years of filing.
Limited debate or comments on this amendment leave the court with little insight into the
legislators’ thoughts. However, Chair Butler did speak on the issue and having been exposed to
this issue in his own practice. He commented that the amendment would “create [ ] a more
equitable situation for taxpayers” who have not filed for multiple years and give them “an
opportunity to come even * * * and file their tax returns.” Testimony, House Revenue
Committee, Feb 9, 2005 (statement of Chair Thomas Butler). This language of equity and
opportunity suggests that legislature intended to have late filers treated similarly, without regard
to whether it is taxpayer or the department that makes a subsequent adjustment to the return. The
legislative history does not demonstrate that the changes to ORS 314.415(2)(a) were intended to
5 In her written testimony to the House Committee on Revenue, Debra Buchanan, Finance Director for the Department of Revenue identified the anomaly as follows: “Example 1: Bob had $1,500 of tax withheld from his 2000 wages. Bob didn’t file his return by April 15, 2001, the due date, but did pay an additional $1,000 on April 15, 2003. On June 15, 2004 Bob filed his 2000 tax return requesting a $500 refund. The refund must be denied because his claim for a refund was filed more than 3 years after the due date of the return. “Example 2: Sam had $1,500 of tax withheld from his 2000 wages. Sam did not file his 2000 return by April 15, 2001 but did pay an additional $500 on April 15, 2003. On June 15, 2004 Sam filed his 2000 tax return and calculated tax due of $500 which he paid with the return. In processing the return, the department determined Sam made an error and actually overpaid his tax by $500. Because Sam didn’t file a claim for refund, the department may issue Sam a refund of $500, which is the amount of tax Sam paid in the two years preceding the filing of his return. ***** “HB 2448 would provide consistent treatment of taxpayers by allowing a refund of tax paid within the two year period prior to the date the return is filed.” House Revenue Committee, Feb 9, 2005, Ex 5 (statement of Buchanan).
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 8 have any impact on taxpayers filing estimated taxes—the topic did not come up. The legislature
also did not discuss the court’s prior holding in Jones, 15 OTR 92, which held that estimated
taxes could not be refunded where the payment was made in 1994 but the return was not filed
until four years later.
2. ORS 316.583 (Estimated Taxes)
In 1993 the legislature considered HB 2058, which among other changes, added section 3
to ORS 316.583:
“If there is an overpayment of income taxes for a taxable year, and the taxpayer elects on a return (including an amended return) for that taxable year filed after the due date (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing) to have the overpayment credited against an installment of estimated tax for a subsequent taxable year, the overpayment shall be credited against that installment of estimated tax. The amount credited shall be deemed paid as estimated tax on the date the return was filed.”
HB 2058 clarified that an estimate tax is not considered “paid” for the subsequent year until a
late return is filed. This removed the inequitable treatment of taxpayers by “treat[ing] them the
same whether they asked for the overpayment to be applied to estimated tax or whether they
asked for a refund and asked it to be applied to their other delinquent account.” Tape Recording,
House Committee on Revenue and School Finance, Subcommittee on Income Taxation, HB
2058, Jan 28, 1993, Tape 7, Side B (Statement of Jim Bucholz, Oregon Department of Revenue).
This legislative intent seems to suggest that this bill was simply acknowledging that the
overpayment credit should be taken into account as an estimated payment for the subsequent
year when the election is made—consistent with good accounting practices. Nothing in the
legislative history suggests that this was an extension of the statute of limitations under ORS
314.415 or was attempting to define when estimated taxes are considered “paid” for the current
tax year.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 9 Plaintiffs’ reading of the statutes is creative, but the court is not convinced that when the
legislature amended ORS 314.415 and ORS 316.583, they intended to radically change the
limitation period for taxpayers to request a tax refund or credit. The legislative history simply
does not support Plaintiffs’ position.
D. Equity
Plaintiffs argue that “Oregon tax law requires fairness and equity which entitles Plaintiffs
to relief.” (Ptfs’ Mot Summ J at 11.) While ORS 305.425(3) provides that the Tax Court is
required to maintain “rules of equity practice and procedure” it is generally not a court of equity.
DeArmond v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 112, 118 (1997), aff’d, 328 Or 60 (1998)
(“[R]easonableness in procedures is in the same category of fairness in substance: both are
matters for the legislature.”) Nevertheless, the court does want to recognize the bigger picture of
this issue. From an equitable perspective the result here is harsh – Plaintiffs are losing the
benefit of a large overpayment they made to the state. Yet, this extremely rare situation is of
Plaintiffs’ own making – they choose to blindly send in money to the state and then ignored their
obligation to file a return for many years. A legal maxim says “hard cases make bad law” but in
this instance, it appears that a hard law makes bad cases.
III. CONCLUSION
The court concludes that ORS 316.583(3) does not alter the statute of limitations
contained in ORS 314.415(1)(a) and that a credit or refund is available to taxpayer only on a
return filed within the three years provided in ORS 314.415 or for amounts paid within two years
of the filing of the tax return. Because Plaintiffs filed their return after the three-year deadline
and did not make payment within two-years of filing of the return, there are no overpayments to
credit for the subsequent tax years under ORS 316.583(3). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 10 summary judgment is denied and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is
granted.
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 Davis and entered on August 31, 2022.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS TC-MD 210019R 11