Gua v. Dept. of Rev.

• Court: Oregon Tax Court
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: TC 5490
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Income Tax

CINDY GUA and WEEDBUCKS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) TC 5490 ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S Defendant. ) MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on November 5,

2025. Plaintiffs responded on November 17, 2025. Defendant replied on December 1, 2025.

Since Defendant’s reply, Plaintiffs have filed a “Supplemental Clarification,” a “Notice of

Service of Discovery,” and a “Surreply.”

The appeal in this division was commenced by a filing that Plaintiffs deposited in the US

Mail on October 14, 2025, according to the postmark on the envelope. That filing contained a

cover letter to the clerk of the court, a “Petition to Vacate Void Judgment from Magistrate

Division Case Nos. TC-MD 250036G & TC-MD 250037G,” a copy of a decision in Magistrate

Division case No. TC-MD 250036G dated June 11, 2025, and a copy of a decision in Magistrate

Division case No. TC-MD 250037G dated June 11, 2025. The filing is signed by “Dan Baldwin,

Authorized Representative for Appellants.” The filing was accompanied by a check in the

amount of one filing fee: $281. Upon receipt, the court treated the filing as a complaint and

served a copy on Defendant as required by ORS 305.560(1)(b).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TC 5490 Page 1 of 3 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ complaint is time-barred under ORS 305.501(5)(a) and

thus is subject to dismissal pursuant to Tax Court Rule (TCR) 21 A(9). 1 A party appealing a

decision of the Magistrate Division to the Regular Division of the Tax Court must do so by filing

a complaint “within 60 days after the date of entry of the written decision.” ORS 305.501(5)(a).

A complaint filed by US Mail generally is deemed filed on its postmark date. See

ORS 305.418(2)(a). The Magistrate Division decisions enclosed with Plaintiffs’ complaint were

entered on June 11, 2025. The 60-day period to appeal expired on August 11, 2025. However,

Plaintiffs’ complaint was postmarked on October 14, 2025. Plaintiffs’ complaint was therefore

filed 64 days late as to each decision.

The filing deadline is statutorily mandated, and the court has no discretion to excuse

noncompliance. See Mughal v. Dept. of Rev., 23 OTR 509 (2019). An untimely complaint must

be dismissed pursuant to TCR 21 A(9). Because no appeal was taken to this division within 60

days, the Magistrate Division decisions are final. See ORS 305.501(7).

Plaintiffs argue that TCR 71 B authorizes them to pursue their appeal in this division

even after the 60-day period has expired. (See Ptfs’ Nov 20, 2025, filing at 2.) That rule

authorizes the court to relieve a party from a “judgment” for specified reasons, including that

“the judgment is void.” 2 TCR 71 B(1)(d). Plaintiffs invoke that reason, arguing among other

things that the Magistrate Division lacked jurisdiction.

The court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument under TCR 71 B. A court’s authority to set aside

void judgments is limited to instances in which the court lacked jurisdiction. See Geranghadr v.

Entagh, 189 Or App 567, 572, 77 P3d 323 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 509 (2004). Plaintiffs appear

1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 edition. 2 The magistrate entered judgment in each case on August 27, 2025, stating that no appeal had been taken within 60 days after the entry of the decision on June 11, 2025.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TC 5490 Page 2 of 3 to allege that defects in Defendant’s service of its answer on Plaintiff before the magistrate

caused the Magistrate Division to lack jurisdiction. (See Ptfs’ Nov 20, 2025, filing at 3.) The

court rejects this argument because Plaintiffs were the plaintiffs in the Magistrate Division and

thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction when they filed their lawsuit; no defect in another party’s

service of the answer could have terminated jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs allege that various other problems occurred before the magistrate. The

legislature has provided a remedy for parties dissatisfied with Magistrate Division proceedings:

a trial de novo on the merits in this division. That remedy is available, however, only for a party

who timely appeals. Plaintiffs did not. 3 Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and that Plaintiffs’

complaint is dismissed. Counsel for Defendant is directed to submit an appropriate form of

judgment of dismissal.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2025.

3 The court observes that Plaintiffs’ filing appears to be deficient in at least two additional respects: First, a separate complaint and filing fee are required in this division for each Magistrate Division decision being appealed. See ORS 305.501(5)(a) (“Any party dissatisfied with a written decision of a magistrate may appeal the decision by filing a complaint in the regular division”) (emphasis added). Second, the signatory of the filing in this case is not an individual taxpayer named as a party in the filing, nor does he appear to be an Oregon attorney, based on a search of the Oregon State Bar’s member database. See TCR 1 F(1) (“Pursuant to ORS 9.320, the parties to any proceeding in the Regular Division must either appear in person or be represented by an active member of the Oregon State Bar.”). The court’s determination that the filing is untimely makes it unnecessary to resolve these additional issues.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TC 5490 Page 3 of 3