CAMPBELL, J.
The issue in this case is whether ORS 305.419(1) creates a jurisdictional requirement when it requires that a taxpayer pay the alleged tax deficiency, penalties and interest on a tax assessment prior to or concurrently with the filing of a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court. ORS 305.419 reads in pertinent part:
“(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, in any appeal from an order of the department involving a deficiency of taxes imposed upon or measured by net income, the tax assessed, and all penalties and interest due, shall be paid to the department on or before the filing of a complaint with the regular division of the Oregon Tax Court under ORS 305.560. The complaint shall be filed as a claim for refund.
* * * *
“(3) Upon a showing of undue hardship by the plaintiff, the tax court may stay all or any part of the payment of tax, penalty and interest required under subsection (1) of this section.”
The Tax Court held that taxpayer’s failure to pay the taxes assessed and all penalties and interest due on or before filing a complaint as required by ORS 305.419(1) constituted jurisdictional defect. We affirm.
The Oregon Department of Revenue (the Department) on October 11, 1981, issued a notice of deficiency to Leffler Industries, Inc. (Leffler) alleging a deficiency in Leffler’s corporate excise tax payment for its fiscal year ending August 31, 1978. Leffler protested the notice of deficiency and the Department held a hearing on September 28, 1983. The Deputy Director issued an Opinion and Order on April 9, 1984, holding Leffler responsible for additional tax interest and penalties in the amount of $15,229.52. On June 8, 1984, Leffler filed its complaint with the Tax Court protesting the assessment of the deficiency following the procedure set forth in ORS 305.5601 but did not pay the disputed amount as [484]*484required by ORS 305.419(1) until June 19,1984.*
2 On July 12, 1984, the Department filed its answer alleging, among other things, an affirmative defense that “the requirements of ORS 309.419(1) are jurisdictional and that the failure to comply with said subsection denies this court of jurisdiction to hear the proceedings.” On August 10, 1984, the Tax Court denied Leffler’s motion to strike the Department’s affirmative defense and ruled that the failure to pay the assessment on or before the day of filing such complaint constituted a jurisdictional defect which deprived the court of jurisdiction of the appeal. A decree dismissing the appeal to the Tax Court was signed and filed on August 29,1984, and notice of appeal was filed in this court on September 4,1984.
ORS 305.419(1) was at issue in Cole v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 188, 655 P2d 171 (1982). In that case, a Tax Court order dismissing Cole’s suit dated May 5, 1982, stated in pertinent part that:
“The several complaints on file in the above-entitled suits do not allege that the tax as assessed and all penalties and interest due were paid to the Department of Revenue on or before the filing of the complaints herein as required by Or Laws 1982 ss, ch 29 (House Bill 3314), [Codified as ORS 305.419(1)] and the plaintiffs’ objections to the Motion to Dismiss indicate that no payments have been made. The court, now deeming itself fully advised, finds that, under House Bill 3314, it does not have jurisdiction to try the above-entitled suits and they should be dismissed, and it is, therefore,
“ORDERED that the above-entitled suits should be and hereby are dismissed * * *.”
The taxpayers in Cole asserted that the prepayment requirement was constituitionally flawed. We held that there [485]*485were no constitutional infirmities and affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. Cole, 294 Or at 194.
In Cole, as in this case, the order contained a notice of the right to appeal to the Tax Court. The notice reads as follows:
“If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may appeal to the Oregon Tax Court, 520 Justice Building, Salem, Oregon 97310.
“You must appeal within 60 days of the mailing date shown above. And, under House Bill 3314 (1982 Special Session), on or before filing a complaint, you must pay the department the tax assessed, penalties and interest due, in the amount shown in this Opinion and Order.
“File your appeal as a claim for refund with the regular division of the Tax Court, under ORS 305.560. However, upon a showing of undue hardship, the Tax Court may stay all or part of the payment.”
The Tax Court in Cole, and since that time, has interpreted the prepayment requirement as jurisdictional. Leffler claims that the word “shall” in ORS 305.419(1) does not mean shall.
We disagree. The statute is clear. That “shall” means shall is backed up by the language of ORS 305.419(1). The key language is that “the tax * * * shall be paid * * * on or before the filing of a complaint * * * under ORS 305.560. The complaint shall be filed as a claim for refund. ” (Emphasis added.) The language makes clear that before one can effectively file a complaint under ORS 305.560 the tax must be paid. The last sentence of ORS 305.419(1) gives additional insight. The requirement that the claim “shall be filed as a refund” means that something had to be previously paid.
The intent of the legislation is also found in the legislative history.3 The Staff Measure Analysis for House Bill [486]*4863314 prepared by the economist for the Legislative Revenue Office described the purpose of the bill as follows:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CAMPBELL, J.
The issue in this case is whether ORS 305.419(1) creates a jurisdictional requirement when it requires that a taxpayer pay the alleged tax deficiency, penalties and interest on a tax assessment prior to or concurrently with the filing of a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court. ORS 305.419 reads in pertinent part:
“(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, in any appeal from an order of the department involving a deficiency of taxes imposed upon or measured by net income, the tax assessed, and all penalties and interest due, shall be paid to the department on or before the filing of a complaint with the regular division of the Oregon Tax Court under ORS 305.560. The complaint shall be filed as a claim for refund.
* * * *
“(3) Upon a showing of undue hardship by the plaintiff, the tax court may stay all or any part of the payment of tax, penalty and interest required under subsection (1) of this section.”
The Tax Court held that taxpayer’s failure to pay the taxes assessed and all penalties and interest due on or before filing a complaint as required by ORS 305.419(1) constituted jurisdictional defect. We affirm.
The Oregon Department of Revenue (the Department) on October 11, 1981, issued a notice of deficiency to Leffler Industries, Inc. (Leffler) alleging a deficiency in Leffler’s corporate excise tax payment for its fiscal year ending August 31, 1978. Leffler protested the notice of deficiency and the Department held a hearing on September 28, 1983. The Deputy Director issued an Opinion and Order on April 9, 1984, holding Leffler responsible for additional tax interest and penalties in the amount of $15,229.52. On June 8, 1984, Leffler filed its complaint with the Tax Court protesting the assessment of the deficiency following the procedure set forth in ORS 305.5601 but did not pay the disputed amount as [484]*484required by ORS 305.419(1) until June 19,1984.*
2 On July 12, 1984, the Department filed its answer alleging, among other things, an affirmative defense that “the requirements of ORS 309.419(1) are jurisdictional and that the failure to comply with said subsection denies this court of jurisdiction to hear the proceedings.” On August 10, 1984, the Tax Court denied Leffler’s motion to strike the Department’s affirmative defense and ruled that the failure to pay the assessment on or before the day of filing such complaint constituted a jurisdictional defect which deprived the court of jurisdiction of the appeal. A decree dismissing the appeal to the Tax Court was signed and filed on August 29,1984, and notice of appeal was filed in this court on September 4,1984.
ORS 305.419(1) was at issue in Cole v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 188, 655 P2d 171 (1982). In that case, a Tax Court order dismissing Cole’s suit dated May 5, 1982, stated in pertinent part that:
“The several complaints on file in the above-entitled suits do not allege that the tax as assessed and all penalties and interest due were paid to the Department of Revenue on or before the filing of the complaints herein as required by Or Laws 1982 ss, ch 29 (House Bill 3314), [Codified as ORS 305.419(1)] and the plaintiffs’ objections to the Motion to Dismiss indicate that no payments have been made. The court, now deeming itself fully advised, finds that, under House Bill 3314, it does not have jurisdiction to try the above-entitled suits and they should be dismissed, and it is, therefore,
“ORDERED that the above-entitled suits should be and hereby are dismissed * * *.”
The taxpayers in Cole asserted that the prepayment requirement was constituitionally flawed. We held that there [485]*485were no constitutional infirmities and affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. Cole, 294 Or at 194.
In Cole, as in this case, the order contained a notice of the right to appeal to the Tax Court. The notice reads as follows:
“If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may appeal to the Oregon Tax Court, 520 Justice Building, Salem, Oregon 97310.
“You must appeal within 60 days of the mailing date shown above. And, under House Bill 3314 (1982 Special Session), on or before filing a complaint, you must pay the department the tax assessed, penalties and interest due, in the amount shown in this Opinion and Order.
“File your appeal as a claim for refund with the regular division of the Tax Court, under ORS 305.560. However, upon a showing of undue hardship, the Tax Court may stay all or part of the payment.”
The Tax Court in Cole, and since that time, has interpreted the prepayment requirement as jurisdictional. Leffler claims that the word “shall” in ORS 305.419(1) does not mean shall.
We disagree. The statute is clear. That “shall” means shall is backed up by the language of ORS 305.419(1). The key language is that “the tax * * * shall be paid * * * on or before the filing of a complaint * * * under ORS 305.560. The complaint shall be filed as a claim for refund. ” (Emphasis added.) The language makes clear that before one can effectively file a complaint under ORS 305.560 the tax must be paid. The last sentence of ORS 305.419(1) gives additional insight. The requirement that the claim “shall be filed as a refund” means that something had to be previously paid.
The intent of the legislation is also found in the legislative history.3 The Staff Measure Analysis for House Bill [486]*4863314 prepared by the economist for the Legislative Revenue Office described the purpose of the bill as follows:
“Requires taxpayers appealing personal income, corporate excise or corporate income tax cases before the Oregon Tax Court to pay the tax deficiency, penalty and interest before the appeal may be filed * *
In summary, Leffler was given clear notice that the tax must be paid on or before filing its appeal in Tax Court. The legislature clearly stated that the payment of the tax due was a prerequisite to the Tax Court’s ability to hear the case. The Tax Court is affirmed.