Lemieux v. Dept. of Rev.
Opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Income Tax
FRANCOISE M. LEMIEUX, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 260035R v. )
)
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appeals Defendant’s Conference Decision Letter/Notice of Refund Denial dated November 5, 2025, for the 2021 tax year. A remote trial was held via WebEx on July 30, 2026. Plaintiff appeared and testified on her own behalf. Tracy Zuniga (Zuniga), auditor, appeared and testified on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 to 10 and Defendant’s Exhibits A to G were admitted without objection.
Plaintiff seeks an Oregon income tax refund more than three years after the return was due. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to notify her that she had not timely filed her 2021 tax return and that equitable principles require Defendant to issue a refund. Defendant argues that Oregon law prohibits it from issuing a refund because the claim was filed more than three years after the return’s due date and no tax payments were made within two years before the refund claim.
Plaintiff raises concerns about whether tax administrators should notify taxpayers when their records indicate withholding has been received but no return was filed. Those concerns, however, do not alter the statutory limitation on Defendant’s authority to issue a refund. /// ///
DECISION TC-MD 260035R 1
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff engaged a CPA to prepare and file her 2021 federal and Oregon income tax returns. Plaintiff filed for an extension for her federal return, which automatically extended the deadline to file her Oregon return. Plaintiff’s CPA emailed her completed returns to Plaintiff on November 21, 2022. (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 3.) Plaintiff testified that she did not see or respond to that email.
On May 19, 2025, the IRS sent Plaintiff a notice stating, “There is a $5,000.00 credit on your account, but we haven’t received your tax return.” (Ptf’s Ex 2.) Plaintiff testified that receipt of this letter was the first time she became aware that her 2021 tax returns had not been filed. Plaintiff’s 2021 federal tax return was received in June 2025, and she received a federal income tax refund for that year in September 2025. (Ptf’s Ex 7.) Plaintiff’s 2021 Oregon return was received on June 18, 2025; however, Defendant did not issue a refund, citing her request as untimely. (Def’s Ex A at 1, Ex C at 1.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue is whether Defendant is barred by ORS 314.415(2)(a)1 from refunding a 2021 overpayment to Plaintiff. A. Three-Year Limitation on Income Tax Refunds ORS 314.415(2)(a) limits both the time for claiming a refund and the amount that may be refunded. As relevant here, if the original return is not filed within three years of the return’s due date, excluding extensions, Defendant may allow or make a refund only of the amounts paid within two years before the filing of the refund claim.2
1 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2019 version.
2 ORS 314.415(2)(a) states: “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 of the tax) was paid, whichever period
DECISION TC-MD 260035R 2
The treatment of filing extensions is important to understanding why the IRS allowed Plaintiff’s refund request and Oregon did not. Federal law takes the filing extension period into account in determining the amount that may be refunded. Treas Reg § 301.6511(b)-1(b)(1)(i). Oregon law expressly does not. ORS 314.415(2)(a) provides that, when determining whether an original return was filed within three years of its due date, extensions are excluded. Thus, although Plaintiff’s federal refund claim was allowed, her Oregon refund claim was filed after Oregon’s three-year period had expired.
Under ORS 316.187, amounts deducted from an employee’s wages during a calendar year are considered part payment of the employee’s tax for that taxable year. Because Plaintiff’s refund claim is based solely on tax withheld from her wages during 2021, she made no “payments” for that tax year within two years before filing her June 2025 refund claim. Accordingly, ORS 314.415(2)(a) bars the requested refund. B. Equitable Tolling Although the statutory result is clear, Plaintiff’s equitable concerns are understandable.
First, she notes that the IRS sent her a notice before the refund deadline had expired and argues Defendant should have done so as well. Defendant knew that payments had been tendered on her behalf and that she had not filed a return. Zuniga asserts that Oregon would not have known if Plaintiff had an obligation to file a return, owed money, or was due a refund until she filed her tax return. ///
expires later, unless before the expiration of this period a claim for refund is filed by the taxpayer in compliance with ORS 305.270. 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 subsection, the department may not allow the excess as a credit against any tax occurring on a return filed for a subsequent year.”
DECISION TC-MD 260035R 3
Defendant’s position may accurately describe its legal obligations, but Plaintiff understandably questions why, with modern automated tax administration systems, the IRS notified her of the unfiled return, but Oregon did not. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has identified no legal requirement that Defendant provide such notice. Plaintiff’s citation to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, ORS 305.860 to 305.900, does not create such a requirement or override the legislature’s specific limitation on Defendant’s authority to issue a refund under the circumstances of this case. Oregon law does not permit the court to toll the refund limitation period in ORS 314.415(2)(a) based on equitable grounds. See DeArmond v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 112, 117 (1997), aff’d, 328 Or 60, 968 P2d 1280 (1998) (declining to apply equitable tolling to a tax refund limitation period); see also United States v. Brockamp, 519 US 347, 354, 117 S Ct 849, 136 L Ed 2d 818 (1997) (holding that federal tax refund limitation periods are not subject to equitable tolling).
Plaintiff questioned why Defendant provided her with appeal rights if the law ultimately prohibited payment of her refund. The availability of appeal rights does not imply that a taxpayer will prevail. Rather, those rights provide a taxpayer an opportunity to challenge Defendant’s determination and to present evidence and legal arguments to an independent tribunal. Success is not guaranteed – only the right to challenge the determination is afforded to taxpayers. Here, after considering Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments, the court concludes that ORS 314.415(2)(a) bars the requested refund.
Plaintiff also argues that denial of her refund is akin to a 100 percent penalty – the same percentage penalty Oregon imposes for failing to file required returns for three consecutive years or for false returns made with intent to evade tax. (Ptf’s Ex 8 at 1); see also ORS 305.992(1), ORS 314.400(6). The court can see how Plaintiff could view her refund denial as a “penalty,”
DECISION TC-MD 260035R 4 because the economic consequence to her is the loss of the entire claimed refund. Statutory limitations periods can produce harsh results, but determining the appropriate period in which a refund may be claimed is a policy judgment entrusted to the legislature.
III. CONCLUSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lemieux v. Dept. of Rev. (Lemieux v. Dept. of Rev.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.