Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001)

Oregon Tax Court

Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001)

DecidedMay 2, 2001

DocketTC 4512

StatusPublished

This text of Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001) (Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001)) 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

Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001), (Or. Super. Ct. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs (taxpayers) seek individual income tax refunds for 1997 and 1998 on the ground that their Oregon retirement benefits (PERS) were exempt from state taxation. There is no dispute of fact, and only legal issues are presented by taxpayers' appeal. Accordingly, the matter has been submitted to the court on motions for summary judgment.

FACTS Taxpayer Evadne Hilands was a state employee between 1952 and 1989. As such, she accrued benefits and received payments from PERS in both 1997 and 1998. The state required taxpayers to include those retirement payments as taxable income. Taxpayers claim that the Oregon statute imposing tax on those state retirement benefits impaired Evadne's contract with the state in violation of Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution.

COURT'S ANALYSIS Taxpayers are correct that imposing taxes on Evadne's state retirement income violates her contract with the state of Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court so held in Hughes v. State of Oregon, 314 Or. 1, 838 P.2d 1018 (1992). However, taxpayers err in concluding that the only remedy is tax exemption. In response to the legal decisions, the Oregon legislature increased the benefits to PERS retirees in order to compensate for the damages due to taxing their benefits. The Oregon Supreme Court has upheld that remedy. See Ragsdale v. Dept. of Rev., 321 Or. 216,895 P.2d 1348 (1995), cert den sub nom Bank of California, N.A. v. OregonDept. of Rev., 516 U.S. 1011, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); seealso Stovall v. State of Oregon, 324 Or. 92, 922 P.2d 646 (1996).

All of this was clearly explained in more detail in the magistrate's decision. However, taxpayers are not satisfied because of the disparate treatment of federal retirees.

Taxpayers may have cause for complaint, but any solution must be devised by the legislature not by the courts. Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is granted, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Costs to neither party.

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

Plaintiffs (taxpayers) seek individual income tax refunds for 1997 and 1998 on the ground that their Oregon retirement benefits (PERS) were exempt from state taxation. There is no dispute of fact, and only legal issues are presented by taxpayers' appeal. Accordingly, the matter has been submitted to the court on motions for summary judgment.

FACTS Taxpayer Evadne Hilands was a state employee between 1952 and 1989. As such, she accrued benefits and received payments from PERS in both 1997 and 1998. The state required taxpayers to include those retirement payments as taxable income. Taxpayers claim that the Oregon statute imposing tax on those state retirement benefits impaired Evadne's contract with the state in violation of Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution.

COURT'S ANALYSIS Taxpayers are correct that imposing taxes on Evadne's state retirement income violates her contract with the state of Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court so held in Hughes v. State of Oregon, 314 Or. 1, 838 P.2d 1018 (1992). However, taxpayers err in concluding that the only remedy is tax exemption. In response to the legal decisions, the Oregon legislature increased the benefits to PERS retirees in order to compensate for the damages due to taxing their benefits. The Oregon Supreme Court has upheld that remedy. See Ragsdale v. Dept. of Rev., 321 Or. 216,895 P.2d 1348 (1995), cert den sub nom Bank of California, N.A. v. OregonDept. of Rev., 516 U.S. 1011, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); seealso Stovall v. State of Oregon, 324 Or. 92, 922 P.2d 646 (1996).

All of this was clearly explained in more detail in the magistrate's decision. However, taxpayers are not satisfied because of the disparate treatment of federal retirees.

Taxpayers may have cause for complaint, but any solution must be devised by the legislature not by the courts. Now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is granted, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Costs to neither party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hilands v. Department of Revenue, 4512 (or.tax 5-2-2001), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilands-v-department-of-revenue-4512-ortax-5-2-2001-ortc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack