Gua v. Dept. of Rev.

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Personal Income Tax

CINDY GUA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC 5453 v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Initial Set of Responsive Documents and

Plaintiff's Request to Place Case on Hold Until September 18, 2023,” filed August 17, 2023 and

Defendant’s response filed August 21, 2023.

Plaintiff’s August 17 filing comes as the court seeks to adjudicate her initial claim that

paying the income tax, interest, and penalties assessed to her for tax years 2016 through 2019

would be an undue hardship under ORS 305.419. 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay of Payment

of Income Tax, and accompanying affidavit, on or about April 19, 2023; Defendant objected on

or about May 22, 2023. On May 25, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit additional

documents, on or before June 30, 2023, to substantiate her claim of financial hardship during the

approximately five years preceding the filing of her complaint. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff

sought an extension, until July 30, 2023, to submit the substantiating documents, which the court

granted. On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff requested a second extension, until August 30, 2023,

representing that she had requested, but not yet received, copies of documents from banks, credit

card companies, and other accounts. On August 9, 2023, the court granted that second extension

request, ordering Plaintiff to file an initial set of documents on or before August 17, 2023, and

1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2021 edition.

Page 1 of 3 ORDER TC 5453 ordering her to otherwise fully comply with the August 30, 2023, deadline.

Plaintiff’s August 17 filing includes some 200 pages of credit card statements, for periods

in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, responsive to the court’s order to furnish documents

substantiating her claim of undue hardship. Despite that length, the documents respond to only

one of the six types of substantiating documents that the court ordered. Documents remaining to

be filed by the August 30, 2023, deadline include federal income tax returns and tax forms, a

declaration of gifts, bank statements, and property tax statements. Plaintiff’s August 17 filing

mentions nothing about the documents remaining to be filed.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s August 17 filing asks the court to “place this case on hold

until September 18, 2023.” To that extent, the court treats the August 17 filing as a motion to

place the case in abeyance. 2 Plaintiff represents that lack of information has prevented her from

filing returns for the tax years at issue in this case, but that, over the last several months, she has

been able to obtain the needed information and has engaged an accountant to prepare the

returns. The filing states that the returns “are now complete and ready to be submitted to the

Oregon Department of Revenue,” and that they “are being mailed” to Defendant’s

auditor. Plaintiff states that her intent in filing the returns is to cause the case to be placed on

hold to allow Defendant to process the returns, making the “case a moot issue.”

Defendant’s August 21 response objects to any abeyance of the case on the grounds that

Defendant has not actually received any returns from Plaintiff. Defendant also refers to the

availability of proceedings under ORS 305.265(10), in the event Defendant receives returns.

Under that provision, Defendant may request an abeyance of this proceeding to review returns.

See ORS 305.265(10)(e) (“If [a taxpayer] submits a report or return to the department and

2 Plaintiff’s August 17 filing does not ask for an extension of the August 30 deadline and provides no information on Plaintiff’s progress in obtaining and submitting the ordered documents.

Page 2 of 3 ORDER TC 5453 appeals the assessment to the tax coult, the department may request a stay of action from the

court pending review of the report or retum.") (emphasis added). If Defendant accepts the returns

for processing, the instant case may be dismissed as moot, and any such returns are subject to

audit and adjustment. See ORS 305.265(IO)(f) (allowing department to examine and adjust the

return).

ANALYSIS

The court has inherent discretionary authority to place a case in abeyance as a means of

managing its docket. See Seneca Sustainable Energy v. Lane County Assessor, 23 OTR I, 4

(2018) (stating that relevant factors include the interests of the parties, the convenience of the

court and the efficiency of its processes, and the interests of nonlitigants and the public). In

general, the introduction of new, relevant information, which upon review and conferral could

enable the parties to reach a resolution that will make a case moot, is a factor that can favor

holding a case in abeyance. In this case, however, the court agrees with Defendant that abeyance

would be premature because the Department has not yet received any tax returns for the subject

years. To date, there is no new information to review.

Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for abeyance is denied. The August 30, 2023,

deadline to comply with the court's order of August 9, 2023, remains in effect.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2023.

8/25/2023 2:10:57 PM

a .

Judge Robert T. Manlcke

Page 3 of 3 ORDER TC 5453